The concept of "resistance" has been one of the main concepts of the foreign policy discourse of the Islamic Republic in the era after the victory of the Islamic Revolution; This concept refers to the negation of any order based on the dominance of Western and Eastern powers and the rejection of regional and international arrangements affected by the dominance system on the one hand and the attempt to redefine the regional and international status of nations and societies that are Dominion has been oppressed. For this reason, the axis of resistance, which is derived from Iran's military-security, diplomatic and cultural efforts in the countries of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, has been one of the most important indicators of the country's foreign policy discourse in the last few years, especially in the fight against ISIS. Martyr Qassem Soleimani's managerial and security role as the most important commander of the resistance field made his position prominent in this discourse, and with his testimony, Iran's hostile approach towards the commanders and perpetrators of this terror was intensified. For this purpose, this article seeks to find the answer to this question, considering the position of Martyr Soleimani in the discourse of the axis of resistance, on what basis is his criminal pursuit in the international law system based? In response to this question, as a hypothesis, it should be said that the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators and commanders of Qassem Soleimani's martyrdom is based on the discourse of resistance and based on the approach of negating domination and weakening it in order to promote the discursive position of resistance. From this point of view, it should be said that the approach of this article was legal; Also, this article has been collected by descriptive and analytical method and its data is documented.
Introduction
The concept of "resistance" has been one of the central themes in the foreign policy discourse of the Islamic Republic since the victory of the Islamic Revolution. This concept refers to rejecting any system based on the dominance of Western and Eastern powers, as well as rejecting regional and international arrangements influenced by the hegemonic order. It also aims to redefine the role and status of nations and societies oppressed by this system of domination. Over the past two decades, the Axis of Resistance, which is rooted in Iran's military, security, diplomatic, and cultural efforts in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, has been one of the most important pillars of the country's foreign policy discourse, especially in the fight against ISIS.
Martyr Qassem Soleimani’s leadership and security role as the most prominent commander of the Resistance highlighted his position within this discourse. His assassination intensified Iran's confrontational stance towards those responsible for the attack. This article seeks to answer the question: Given Martyr Soleimani's role in the Axis of Resistance discourse, on what basis can his assassination be prosecuted under international law? In response, it can be hypothesized that the prosecution of those responsible for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani is based on the discourse of resistance and aims to challenge and weaken dominance, thus strengthening the status of the resistance discourse.
Literature Review

Amiri and Kiani (2019): In their article titled “The Resistance Discourse of Martyr Qassem Soleimani in Diplomacy and International Relations,” the authors analyze Soleimani's political behavior and methods in relations between nations and states. They conclude that Soleimani's resistance discourse, characterized by openness, empathy, support, positivity, and equality, cultivated a unique form of diplomacy and communication by inviting people, internal and external elites, and tribes to combat global terrorism through peaceful political methods and various treaties.
Fazayeli (2020): In his article “The Assassination of General Soleimani from the Perspective of International Law on the Use of Force,” Fazayeli concludes that the U.S. action lacked any legal justification and constitutes a clear case of unlawful use of force in violation of the UN Charter. It also breached bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Iraq, particularly the security agreement, and according to the Declaration on the Definition of Aggression and the Rome Statute, this action is considered an act of aggression, leading to the international responsibility of the U.S. government and the criminal responsibility of those involved in this unlawful act.
Montazeran and Jafari (2020): In their article “The Assassination of Martyr General Soleimani from the Perspective of International Law and Humanitarian Law (With Emphasis on the Role of Foreign Media),” the authors conclude that the U.S. action in assassinating the Iranian military commander and his companions is in direct violation of the UN Charter, contravening the most basic principles of international law, including the principles of non-intervention, state sovereignty, the prohibition of the use of force, the principle of non-aggression, and the immunity of state representatives. Ultimately, it is regarded as a form of state terrorism and an act of aggressive war against both Iran and Iraq.

Research Methodology
This article adopts a legal approach and uses a descriptive-analytical method. The data were collected through documentary research.
Conclusion
After reviewing and analyzing the findings, the present research concludes that the assassination of Qassem Soleimani can be addressed using national, regional, and international legal capacities to prevent impunity for those responsible for this unprecedented act and to deter similar actions in the future.
At the national level, applying the principle of personal jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim, as well as the real jurisdiction of the Iranian criminal justice system, is a key mechanism. Regionally, cooperation with the Iraqi government to apply territorial jurisdiction or Iraq's case-specific request to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute under its statute, as a state accepting the Court's jurisdiction in this particular case, is another strategy to counter impunity for the perpetrators of this terrorist act. Internationally, proposing the establishment of a special criminal court with the support and cooperation of the international community, similar to past efforts to prosecute terrorists, or leveraging the capacity of the United Nations Security Council to refer the case—not as an independent terrorist crime but as a form of international crime—are among the approaches to prevent the impunity of those responsible for this terrorist event.