WASHINGTON—In recent weeks, the low-pitched buzzing of Iranian-designed Shahed drones could be heard in the skies over Ukraine and, roughly two thousand miles away, over the Gulf states. In their respective wars, Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) have used this low-cost weapon and others like it to target civilians and civilian infrastructure, often with hundreds of drones taking to the skies in each attack.
Russia is widely viewed as committing crimes under international law with its extensive use of Iranian-designed drones in Ukraine. Efforts are underway to ensure that Russian officials are held accountable for these crimes, even if Moscow and Kyiv agree to a cease-fire. The IRI’s role in supplying its drones to Russia has also been widely acknowledged. But what has received less attention to date is the legal complicity of Iranian officials in those crimes in Ukraine, which flows from evidence that, but for the IRI’s assistance and contribution, the crimes could not have been committed.
The IRI can and should be held accountable for its role in supplying Russia with the means to carry out these crimes against civilians in Ukraine. International law contains legal mechanisms, including through the International Criminal Court (ICC), that the United States and other countries should use to seek justice for these crimes.
Justice alone is reason enough for concerned parties to initiate proceedings to hold the IRI accountable, but there is an additional motivation, as well. Holding the regime accountable through international law could have a deterrent effect on the proliferation and use of Iranian drones in both current and future conflicts, potentially saving civilian lives.
Who is committing the crimes?
Russia’s use of drones in Ukraine to conduct attacks that target, harm, and terrorize the civilian population in Ukraine is well documented. Stalled in its land offensive and squeezed in its ability to produce costly missiles, Moscow has made inexpensive drones, specifically Shahed-style drones, a centerpiece of its military campaign.
In terms of legal accountability under international law, Russia is the primary perpetrator of these crimes, given that it directly launched the attacks against Ukrainian civilians. These crimes include attacks on civilians, attacks on civilian objects, and attacks on specially protected objects. Evidence also convincingly indicates that Russia has committed the crimes against humanity of murder and of other inhumane acts.
How is the IRI contributing to Russia’s crimes in Ukraine?
Although Russia is the primary perpetrator of these crimes because it directly launched the attacks against civilians using the drones supplied by the IRI, Iranian officials still bear responsibility as an accessory to the crimes due to their contribution to Russia’s acts. The Shahed-style drones used to carry out strikes against Ukrainian civilians and civilian objects are critical to the commission of the crimes noted above. Evidence demonstrates that, since August 2022, the IRI acted as a critical producer and supplier of drones to Russia, and that it trains Russian drone operators. It helped establish a Shahed-style drone production factory in Russia, as well as distribution supply chains and training programs, making the Russian military increasingly dependent on Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles. This has all been part of a documented historical cooperative military relationship between Moscow and Tehran that has made the IRI’s contributions to Russia’s violent acts possible.
The IRI and Russia’s coordination in these efforts is ongoing and growing. In January, Ukraine’s military chief said that Russia is planning to more than double its own production of Shahed-style drones, to a rate of one thousand per day. This demonstrates how Iranian support is helping to improve Russia’s own capacities, which have allowed Moscow to strike targets in Ukraine beyond the frontline. In March, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that after the IRI provided Russia with the technology to produce its own Shahed-style drones, the Russian military enhanced the capabilities of their drones and shared such enhancements with the IRI. This coordination reveals the strength of the two governments’ relationship and opens the door to further potential Russian complicity in the IRI’s actions.
Who bears criminal responsibility under international law?
The Russian military is directly and primarily responsible for the core international crimes committed using Shahed-style drones in Ukraine. But international law also contains provisions that may implicate other actors, such as Iranian and Russian officials and their associates, under accessory liability frameworks as set out in the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), and other legal texts.
Recently, evidence for these crimes was collected and analyzed in a report by the International Partnership for Human Rights, the Atlantic Council Strategic Litigation Project, and C4ADS. The report collected open-source information and prepared a legal analysis on the responsibility of Iranian officials for crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. It found evidence indicating that Iranian culpability is available under at least two modes of criminal liability:
This first includes evidence of criminal responsibility as a result of actions that aid and abet Russia’s crimes. Here, the report examined information on the IRI’s drone contributions to Russia, including producing, supplying, and providing training in their use. The evidence in the report shows that these actions were undertaken and continued, even though Iranian and Russian individuals must have been aware that their actions contributed to the crimes committed, particularly against civilians and civilian property.
Second, the report assesses accessory liability that can be found when acts contribute to a common purpose to commit crimes. In this case, one observable common purpose is Russia’s plan to use force against the territory of Ukraine and to undertake a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine. Here again, the knowledge of Iranian officials producing, supplying, and providing training for their drones is important. Despite knowing that Russia used the Iranian drones provided in attacks that directly harmed civilians and civilian objects—amounting to international crimes—the IRI continued to support Russia’s invasion goals with further, and even escalated, support.
Why is justice for all perpetrators necessary?
In the pursuit of justice for crimes across various conflicts, efforts have largely sought to address the actions of primary perpetrators, often ignoring the contributions of third-country actors to the commission of core international crimes.
This has been the case for justice efforts in Ukraine. There has been much meaningful work done to hold the Russian government accountable for its crimes in Ukraine. But much less has been done to hold the IRI accountable for its support for and contribution to Russian crimes, which rises to the level of criminal liability.
The silence as to the criminal responsibility of IRI officials and other Iranian individuals for this support for Russian crimes leaves a dangerous gap in the accountability landscape. If the pervasive issue of Iranian drones used to unlawfully attack civilian targets is to be meaningfully addressed, and a deterrent against further expansion of this already escalating criminality imposed, then accountability for the IRI’s contribution to crimes in Ukraine must be examined and pursued.
Without a full accounting of responsibility, there is a real risk that the scope of future crimes, and consequential harm to victims, could expand. This applies both in Ukraine and, as seen recently, in other important contexts, as Russia and the IRI deepen their mutual support to each other’s unlawful acts.
What are the available paths for accountability?
Several legal tools are available to provide meaningful avenues for accountability at the international and domestic levels.
- International courts and legal institutions: International courts and other legal institutions tasked with investigation crimes committed in Ukraine by Russian individuals, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes, should also consider evidence of the role of Iranian individuals in these crimes. This would include investigations opened before the ICC or before United Nations bodies, such as the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, where investigators and prosecutors are gathering and analyzing evidence of crimes with a view to the evidence being used to support potential criminal charges.
For example, the ICC’s ongoing investigation into the “Situation in Ukraine” has already seen prosecutors bring criminal charges against senior Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, as well as military officials, including a lieutenant general in the Russian armed forces and an admiral in the Russian navy. But the ICC investigation is still ongoing and can charge accessories to these crimes, including Iranian officials. This would be consistent with the ICC’s charging of Congolese rebel leader Germain Katanga and the charges and eventual conviction by the Special Court for Sierra Leone—another international criminal tribunal—against former Liberian President Charles Taylor.
- Domestic justice measures: Similar investigations of international crimes can also be undertaken domestically by states under the principle of universal jurisdiction, a legal theory that allows states to address crimes deemed so serious and of such gravity that a state can investigate and prosecute the crime domestically regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator and where the crime occurred. The investigation of international crimes by domestic authorities can be done by opening a “structural investigation,” which aims to examine the full scope of crimes perpetrated within a conflict and to assess who the perpetrators are, if this is not yet known.
While several countries already have structural investigations open into Russia’s crimes in Ukraine, few have adequately addressed the role of Iranian officials in such crimes. Expanding existing investigations to include all levels of criminal responsibility, including accessories to the crimes in Ukraine, would allow prosecutors to arrest potential perpetrators and prevent shelter should officials and other individuals travel to their jurisdictions. The use of structural investigations and universal jurisdiction proceedings has facilitated prosecutions for international crimes in other contexts, such as the German federal public prosecutor’s prosecution of former Syrian officials.
- Sanctions: States should impose targeted sanctions on individuals or entities involved in facilitating the transfer of weapons between the IRI and the Russian military. As opposed to broad-based sanctions on countries, targeted sanctions against Russian individuals work toward restricting the travel, trade, and financial relations of individuals or entities. The United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Australia, and Canada have all adopted Global Magnitsky targeted sanctions to address human rights violations and corruptions. Each country has already issued sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities for involvement in the Iranian military’s transfer of weapons and should continue to do so.
Using these tools to hold individuals and entities accountable for the devastating and ongoing attacks on Ukrainian civilians can help provide justice to victims of unlawful attacks in Ukraine, as well as address the proliferation of Iranian drones beyond Ukraine. These legal tools also open the door to further examinations of Iran’s similar contributions to crimes in other contexts—including unaddressed evidence of weapons provisions and other support for the Russian military in Syria and more recent use on civilian targets elsewhere in the Middle East.
