Frequently Asked Questions Academics

Main appeal page: click here - Contact the BRussells Tribunal by email: click here

The BRussells Tribunal has compiled a list that names over 270 Iraqi academics murdered between 2024 and 2024. The Iraqi Association of University Lecturers say the number is over 300. The puppet government of Iraq has itself confirmed over 150 assassinations. Other estimates place the number over 1000. This is in addition to the thousands forced to flee Iraq in fear of their lives. That so many are subject to forced exile is testament to the violent climate that faces Iraqi educators, intellectuals and academics.

Further to assassinations, disappearances and forced exile, a report published in 2024 by the International Leadership Institute, affiliated to the United Nations University, found that “Eighty-four per cent of higher education institutes were burned, looted or destroyed,” following the US invasion in 2024.

This appeal speaks to all those who understand that education is the foundation of sovereignty and justice, and an important factor promoting democracy and development in Iraq.

i) Challenging — if possible, forestalling — the campaign of assassinations targeting academics in particular, and more widely anti-occupation figures, in Iraq;

ii) Drawing attention to an important aspect of the occupation and of imperialism: the destruction of Iraq’s intellectual resources;

iii) Taking specific action in support of Iraqi academics, educators and intellectuals, in:

a) Bringing this matter to the attention of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in Geneva with the aim of providing justification for an urgent fact-finding country visit to Iraq;

b) Engaging in solidarity actions, including linking Iraqi academics inside and exiled with their non-Iraqi peers and raising the issue of the attempted destruction of Iraq’s intellectual resources and heritage on campuses worldwide;

c) Challenging propaganda surrounding the so-called “political process” in the “new Iraq” by exposing one exemplary aspect of the horror and lawlessness borne of US imperial politics.

The pattern of academics assassinated appears to substantiate claims that a campaign exists and is being conducted to erase a key section of the secular middle class in Iraq — a class that has largely resisted the US occupation of Iraq and refused to be co-opted by the so-called “political process” or Iraq’s US-installed puppet government.

They were educators. Being a Baathist or not a Baathist is not criteria for the BRussells Tribunal to defend Iraqi academics. In reality, the term “de-Baathification” is a war slogan used by the US and its allies in a bid to destroy the Iraqi national state — its administrative apparatus, public services, properties, archives, registries of public and private ownership, natural resources, revenues and reserves (leading Iraq to the brink of economic collapse and abject poverty) as well as its economic foundations, laws and judicial system, museums, libraries, army and police, health and education systems, art, print media, radio and television, etc.

This destruction is not a consequence of war but rather a studied plan prepared before the invasion. Strictly speaking, and according to definition under international law, this destruction is genocide.

The liquidation of Iraqi academics has nothing to do with them being Baathist or not. It follows from the imperial character of the invasion of Iraq, and the attempt to render null and void Iraqi sovereignty. The real division in Iraq is between those who go along with this project and those who oppose it.

The US imperial project, based on privatization and ruin, indeed outright looting, plunder and confiscation, and in direct violation of international law, has created the objective and political conditions for the rise of puppet government-controlled death squads and US-drafted mercenary security contractors that kill and terrorize Iraqi academics and others with impunity. It is the biggest heist in history, and it is backed with murderous force.

6. What responsibility does the US, and other members of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, have?

In remaining belligerent occupants, the US and other members of the Multi-National Force in Iraq (MNF-I), though illegally present in Iraq, are legally bound under international humanitarian law to protect civilian life in Iraq, including academics. As occupying powers in “effective control” of Iraq, these duties extend, under international law, not only to all forces operating under MNF-I central command, but all representatives of the occupying powers, including the puppet Iraqi government and its militias. They have systematically failed in this solemn and binding obligation. This failure, when atrocities are as widespread as they are (including assassinations), denotes impunity in the face of international human rights and humanitarian law obligations, and relevant monitoring bodies.

7. You hold the US responsible for protecting Iraqi citizens, including academics. Are you suggesting that US forces are assassinating Iraqi academics?

The BRussells Tribunal charges that Iraq is being held hostage to a number of death squads, many of which have direct links with the US-installed puppet government. There exist military and paramilitary forces that have a stake in ensuring that critical voices — anti-occupation forces — are silenced. The outgoing Maltese UN human rights chief in Iraq is on record stating that the US is “aware” of torture in Iraqi prisons. As an occupying power, any violations of the laws of war and international humanitarian and human rights laws are legally imputable to the United States government. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the United States government and its civilian officials and military personnel are fully and personally responsible for violations committed by the puppet government of Iraq, including assassinations and the existence and operation of death squads. This responsibility exists under international criminal law regardless of the fact that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal, and that everything that has followed in Iraqi domestic politics — including elections, puppet government and faux constitutions — is a furtherance of this illegality and thereby null and void.

Extra-judicial assassination, by nature, is difficult to pin down. It is also dangerous to investigate or even report. The existence of pro-puppet government paramilitary death squads is an established fact. The strong suggestion from the broad community of Iraqi academics is that these forces are conducting the majority of assassinations of anti-occupation academics, educators and intellectuals. The existence of lawless US-outsourced private security firms, peopled by mercenaries, terrorists and murderers only adds to the climate of criminal impunity. This is not an oversight; it is conscious policy.

That is a question for them. The BRussells Tribunal regards the puppet government in Iraq as thoroughly illegitimate and gross violators of human rights. Under international law, occupying powers can not transfer the sovereignty of the Iraqi people to representatives of occupying powers. To suggest that it is acceptable — or even desirable — that a client regime that has no legality under international law conducts an investigation into these assassinations affords that regime a level of recognition and legitimacy that the BRussells Tribunal expressly denies it. It is also akin to charging the fox with overseeing the henhouse. Can a government which supports unaccountable private militias, death squads and secret prisons (all under the Interior Ministry), torturing, disappearing and killing Iraqi civilians daily, be trusted to investigate the assassination of anti-occupation academics and intellectuals? We believe the answer to that question is self-evident. Given that the paramilitary forces that are responsible for the majority of these killings have direct ties to the Iraqi government, the BRussells Tribunal launches this campaign in full knowledge that no puppet government investigation will be forthcoming, and that it would be in no way convincing if it was.

The phrase “Salvador option” refers to the history of US-funded and supported paramilitary forces that assassinated, kidnapped and terrorized countless thousands during the “dirty wars” that established, during the 1970s and 1980s, US hegemony in Latin America. Leading journalists report — and some have been killed investigating — similar operations underway in Iraq, including US/UK state-sponsored terrorism, incitement, torture, disappearances and assassinations.

11. Why is the appeal focused on academics when assassinations are widespread in Iraq?

A key source of national sovereignty is a given country’s intellectual capacity. Iraqi academics are not simply the lifeblood of the educational system; they compose the intellectual class, which is the mind of Iraq, as well as the practical scientific, technical and administrative base necessary to guide Iraq towards independence, democracy and development.

The BRussells Tribunal stands in opposition to all assassinations, but is particularly appalled at the campaign of intimidation and murder targeting Iraqi academics — and the silence afforded to the issue in mainstream media — because it represents the liquidation of the knowledge base that must be mobilized in order to resist US imperial designs on Iraq.

The issue of Iraqi academics who have been and are targeted or assassinated is also important to establishing the existence of a policy of effective genocide in Iraq. A case currently rests before the International Court of Justice relative to Bosnia that evokes a similar charge; that targeting a given country’s educators for slaughter is an indicator and aspect of genocide.

12. Why is the petition addressed to the Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions?

The appeal petition (click here to sign) is addressed to the Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions at UNHCHR in Geneva as he has a clear mandate to raise the issue and press Iraqi and occupying authorities to protect Iraqi academics, along with other civilians. His mandate is also universal (i.e., it exists irrespective of whatever international covenants or conventions a given state has signed, ratified or refused to sign).

There are four things that the special rapporteur can do: i) Dialogue with governments; ii) Include this issue as a byline in his annual report; iii) Authorize and conduct a separate investigation, leading to a separate report from the annual, obligatory report; iv) Make a fact-finding country visit.

The first body the special rapporteur reports to is The Commission on Human Rights. Reports also go to the UN General Assembly. The Commission on Human Rights discusses reports from the special rapporteur during its annual sessions that usually meet in Geneva in March and April. Our aim is to push for an urgent resolution to be proposed at the 62nd session of the Commission in March and April 2024 condemning the existence of death squads in Iraq and obliging the United States, all occupying powers and the puppet Iraqi government — legitimate or otherwise — to enforce all peremptory norms of humanitarian law relative to the protection of civilian life.

Pursuant to a fact-finding country visit (which would also lead to a separate report submitted to The Commission on Human Rights), the Special Rapporteur would be obliged to meet with a wide range of officials and investigate numerous aspects of extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execution in Iraq. The fact-finding process and report investigation would be instrumental in and of itself in bringing an end to all extrajudicial assassinations.

13. How can the Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions pressure governments to act?

The alternatives open to the Special Rapporteur are to: i) Issue “urgent appeals” to governments, encouraging governments to take steps to protect the right to life (and other relevant civil and political rights) and requesting of them that he be informed as and when such steps are taken; ii) Issue “letters of allegations” which are sent to governments in the form of case summaries. Again, the Special Rapporteur would ask to be informed of progress with respect to investigations conducted by concerned governments and penal or disciplinary sanctions imposed on perpetrators, compensation provided to families of victims, and so on.

The Special Rapporteur can ask for information from governments, request that they clarify the substance of allegations, or report on allegations of impunity relative to relevant international standards (such as The Four Geneva Conventions and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among other instruments of international humanitarian and human rights law). The issue of impunity is flagged up by the Special Rapporteur as one of two issues (the other being the death penalty) of “special concern.”

14. What instruments of international law are applicable in the case of assassinated academics?

Principal relevant instruments include The Fourth Geneva Convention (regarded as a foundation of international humanitarian law), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6 and also Articles 2, 4 and 26) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 3 and 2), wherein the right to life “shall be protected by law” and guaranteed without distinction or discrimination.

The puppet Iraqi government and the US and members of Multi-National Force-Iraq are legally subject to these conventions.

Further, Article 4, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any derogation from the right to life and security of the person. Principle 4 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, adopted by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989, sets forth “the obligation of governments to guarantee effective protection through judicial or other means to individuals and groups who are in danger of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions, including those who receive death threats.”

Nowhere in international law is assassination sanctioned. Under resolution 1996/74 of The Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions is requested to: “(b) respond effectively to information that comes before him, in particular when an extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution is imminent or threatened or when such an execution has occurred”; and “(e) pay special attention to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions where the victims are individuals who are carrying out peaceful activities in defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Education has a special place in the universe of UN values because of the ways in which it contributes to understanding and international peace and security. A threat to academics is therefore of principal concern to the UN, and by extension to The Commission on Human Rights.

Also applicable is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as well as the Nuremberg Principles.

Under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, genocide is defined “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” including “killing members of the group,” “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,” and “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Article 3 defines as punishable not only actual genocide as defined, but “conspiracy to commit genocide,” “attempt to commit genocide,” and “complicity in genocide.” Article 8 provides that “Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.”

Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Principles establishes as “war crimes”, “punishable as crimes under international law,” murder and the plunder of public or private property. “Crimes against humanity” are taken to include murder and “persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.” “Crimes against peace” are defined as:

“i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishments of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”

Principle VII of the Nuremberg Principles establishes that “Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.”

Further, the Hague IV Conventions on Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1917, make explicit, in Article 56, that educational institutions are to be regarded as private property, and thus must not be pillaged or destroyed, that occupying forces in war are bound to protect such property and that proceedings should follow their intentional damage, seizure or destruction. Article 55 reinforces this duty relative to all public buildings and capital. Further, an occupying power is obliged, according to Articles 43 and 46, to protect life and take all steps in its power to reestablish and ensure “public order and safety”.

In addition, The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (ratified by the Republic of Iraq in 1967) creates a clear obligation to protect museums, libraries and archives, and other sites of cultural property. Paragraph 1 of Article 4 notes: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; and by refraining from any act of hostility, directed against such property.”

The Hague IV Conventions and Fourth Geneva Convention are peremptory norms of international law: they cannot be violated by any state. Further to these instruments, the 1st Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, makes clear, under Article 51, that “Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.” Under Article 85, concerning “grave breaches” to the Protocol, “when committed willfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health” include “Making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack.” The United States, both alone and on behalf of the puppet government of Iraq, is bound under international law to uphold the provisions of this Protocol.

Additional information: Ratification / signatory status relative to international human rights treaties — Iraq and The United States. For ratification / signatory status relative to international human rights treaties of other members of Multi-National Force-Iraq, click here. Ratification / signatory status relative to international humanitarian law — Iraq and The United States. For ratification / signatory status relative to international humanitarian law of other members of Multi-National Force-Iraq, click here.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a “court of last resort” for the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It does not replace domestic, national courts or remedies, which must be exhausted before any given case can be referred to the ICC. More importantly, the ICC has no jurisdiction in Iraq, given that Iraq is not a State Party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC.

While the puppet government of Iraq (sovereign, legitimate or otherwise) could decide to accept ICC jurisdiction over a specific crime committed in Iraq, it is doubtful that it ever will. Nonetheless, State Parties are obliged to bring their own nationals to the ICC if they themselves are unable or unwilling to hear cases of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity in domestic courts.

In theory, all members of the Multi-National Force in Iraq who are State Parties to the Rome Statute are obligated to surrender individuals to the ICC if credible cases are brought against them and they themselves refuse to hear them in national courts.

i) any State Party to the Rome Statute refers a situation to the ICC Prosecutor;

ii) the state in which the alleged crime was committed refers a situation to the ICC Prosecutor (it need not be a State Party to do so);

The last option is the one most applicable. In this instance the Prosecutor needs, in order to continue, the assent of two judges of a three-judge panel. In the absence of a referral by a state or State Party, information on a given situation can be submitted to the Prosecutor by an IGO or NGO. However, in this instance (where the Prosecutor takes up a case on his own volition), the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction if the state or territory on which the alleged crime was committed, or the state of which the person suspected is a national, is a State Party to the Rome Statute.

Though the US is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, the following states who have — or had — forces in Iraq (and are therefore liable to cases being prepared against them, if relevant facts emerge) are: UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, Estonia, Albania, Georgia, Latvia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Mongolia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Australia.

The BRussells Tribunal is pressing for an investigation by the Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions precisely to bring to light information that could be used in later legal proceedings, including cases brought to the ICC.

16. Does any other court have jurisdiction relative to assassinated Iraqi academics?

Yes. Insofar as all forces that are factually occupying powers are legally imputable for any violations of human rights instruments to which they are State Parties in territories over which they have effective control, members of the Multi-National Force in Iraq (MNF-I) who are State Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 of which protects the right to life, can be held accountable before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violations such as extrajudicial executions and supporting the existence and operation of death squads.

As defined by Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts, “jurisdiction concerns essentially the extent of each state’s right to regulate conduct or the consequences of events.” (Oppenheim’s International Law, vol. 1, 456, 9th ed. 1992). Given that the UN Security Council continues to affirm that the MNF-I are occupying powers, and given the prima facie control the MNF-I reserves for itself over security matters in Iraq, occupying powers which are State Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights are legally imputable for, as all occupying powers would be under international humanitarian law also, violations of a puppet government, like the one installed in Iraq by the fiat of the occupying powers.

State Parties to the European Convention who are also members of MNF-I include: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

Whereas the British High Court has found in other cases that the European Convention could not apply outside of Europe, even where a State Party had effective control of territory, the European Court of Human Rights itself, in two recent cases (Issa and Others v. Turkey, Appl. No. 31821/96 [30 May 2024] and Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Sixteen Other States, Appl. No. 52207/99 [12 December 2024] at para. 60) affirmed that where effective control does exist, principles of the European Convention must be upheld, even where a State Party is occupying territories outside the Council of Europe. This precedent ought to prove useful in any future cases brought to the Court that relate to Iraq. In general, European national courts have been reluctant to hear cases on Iraq. Important test cases, however, have succeeded recently in challenging that reluctance.

Over the ICC, and relative to individual cases of assassinated academics, the European Court on Human Rights has the advantage of being open to individual petitions.

No. Normally speaking, the Special Rapporteur visits only one or two countries per year, though investigations and reports are annually prepared on many others. Outstanding requests for visits exist for Algeria, Liberia, Turkmenistan and Iran, but not for Iraq. This action and appeal aims to get Iraq on the agenda.

Aside from presenting the Special Rapporteur with a case file of verifiable detail on assassinated academics (which the BRussells Tribunal is working with Iraqis to build), signatories to the appeal, and the moral weight of the principal endorsers, helps build momentum and provide justification for the Special Rapporteur to turn his attention and resources to this issue urgently.

Though the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions is the target of this appeal, there are other special rapporteurs linked to UNHCHR in Geneva who will made be aware of the appeal and who may be helpful:

i) The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education. While this special rapporteur is normally concerned with questions of access (economic rights, women’s rights of access, etc.) the underlying theme of the special rapporteur’s work is described — in his 2024 report — as the need to “move education closer to human rights.” The protection of the right to life of educators is surely a matter with which he ought to be concerned. He is also concerned with education under situations of emergency, which was defined explicitly in 2024 as “possibilities such as natural disasters, armed conflicts and situations of occupation.”

ii) The Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. Created by The Commission on Human Rights in 2024, this special rapporteur will be appraised on the destruction of Iraq’s educational infrastructure. The right to education is long established in international law. The BRussells Tribunal will contact this special rapporteur in due course asking for information on what has been done, and what may be done, to secure the right to education amid US military practices in Iraq.

iii) The Independent Expert to Update the Set of Principles for the Protection and the Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity. Established by The Commission on Human Rights in 2024, the independent expert may be of use in drawing attention to the failure of US forces and the Iraqi government to act to prevent the operation of death squads, as well as remaining indifferent to massive and systematic human rights violations in Iraq.

iv) Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID). Established in 1980 by The Commission on Human Rights, the WGEID’s mandate is to assist families in determining the fate and whereabouts of their relatives who, having disappeared, are placed outside the protection of the law. Since September 2024, there has also been established a National Centre for Missing and Disappeared Persons in Iraq.

v) UNHCHR has a human rights “field presence” in Iraq. There is also an Arab region representative office that similarly will be contacted.

vi) The United Nations Human Rights Programme for Iraq will be appraised of our action.

vii) The High Commissioner for Human Rights at UNHCHR will also be appraised directly.

In addition to signing the online petition, individuals can support this campaign by:

i) Contacting local academics and students and organizing seminars, teach-ins and other campus activities on the issue of the attempted destruction of Iraq’s intellectual heritage and capacities. The BRussells Tribunal can act as a link (click here to email us), joining together academics and activists with Iraqi academics in exile and in Iraq;

ii) Pressing national and local newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and internet media outlets to address and investigate the phenomenon of the assassinations of Iraqi academics;

iii) Mobilizing local and national anti-war and peace groups and organizations, faith-based religious groups, labour unions, and human rights groups to the cause of Iraqi development and independence, and the plight of Iraqi academics;

iv) Visiting the BRussells Tribunal website, reading about this action and others, and becoming active in spreading information about this action and the work of the broader World Tribunal on Iraq network, in support of the people of Iraq and the independence and sovereignty of Iraq.

The BRussells Tribunal is working with Iraqis to build a case file to be presented directly to the Special Rapporteur for Summary Executions at the UNHCHR in Geneva. Further actions will be prepared as the appeal develops.

The BRussells Tribunal will present the petition, along with the list of signatories, directly to the Special Rapporteur for Summary Executions at the UNHCHR in Geneva at an appropriate time.

Interviews can also be arranged in Arabic and other languages. Please call +20 (0)10 418 7982

Appeal on assassinated Iraqi academics: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)