Employing the Targeted Killing Strategy against Terrorist Leaders: A Legal Criticism of Military Justifications with an Emphasis on Applicable International Law

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors

1 M.A. of International Law Dep., Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

2 Assistant Prof. at International Law Dep., Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Since the early 21st century, major changes have emerged in the attitudes of a few states toward counterterrorism. In this regard, Israel and the US have adopted unusual military strategies, e.g., targeted killings, in their martial doctrines to fight what they interpreted as terrorism. The foregoing strategy targets merely terrorist leaders and prevents massive campaigns against terrorism. However, no regulations in the international law have prescribed this strategy for counterterrorism. This study aims to determine the legal criticisms of military justifications for resorting to the targeted killing strategy. If it is essential to adopt this strategy, which has been neglected in the international law, what regulations must be observed? The authors used a descriptive-analytical method in this study as well as a comparative technique in some cases to address the foregoing question. In conclusion, although the targeting killing strategy is sometimes considered favorable from a martial perspective, it is difficult to legally justify this strategy. Therefore, five regulations should be followed if this strategy is deemed to be applicable.

Highlights

Introduction

Events like the Intifada Campaign and the September 11 Attacks provided Israel and the US with the necessary pretexts for adopting novel strategies in their martial doctrines for counterterrorism. These strategies were introduced, identified, theorized, accepted, and adopted so fast that the international law failed to take an explicit stance in many cases. The targeted killing is one of such strategies, which came into view in the early 21st century. The philosophy of this strategy is based on the avoidance of massive campaigns against terrorism by concentrating on the elimination of terrorist leaders at the lowest cost and with the fewest casualties. Nevertheless, no regulations in the international law have prescribed this strategy for counterterrorism.

The primary research questions are as follows: What are the legal criticisms of military justifications for supporting the use of this strategy? What regulations must be observed if this strategy is deemed to be necessary? The authors assume that the countries supporting the use of targeted killings try to marginalize its legal aspects by emphasizing its martial advantages. However, it is not wise to conclude that the international law accepts any martially advantageous actions. It is also impossible to believe that the silence of the international law on the targeted killing means the absolute freedom to resort to this strategy. Given the necessity of clearing any ambiguities in this regard, the authors employed a descriptive-analytical method in addition to a comparative technique in order to answer the foregoing questions completely and validate their hypothesis. In conclusion, although the targeted killing strategy can sometimes be useful against terrorist leaders from a martial perspective, it is difficult to legally justify this strategy. Therefore, five regulations must be observed if this strategy is deemed to be applicable.

 

Methodology

In this research, the authors used the descriptive-analytical method and in some cases the comparative method.

 

Results and Discussion

As long as terrorists do not take hostile actions, the targeted killing strategy cannot be used against their leaders. However, if terrorist attacks occur, this strategy turns into a viable option for the victimized state. Although no regulations in the international law have prescribed the use of this strategy in response to terrorist attacks, the victimized state must comply with the following regulations if it intends to resort to this strategy:

  • Responding to terrorist attacks
  • Considering the ultimate solution
  • Applying accurate targeting
  • Selecting weapons and recruiting advisors
  • Arranging coordination with the state where the operations are to be conducted

 

Conclusion

The international law is silent and negligent with regard to the targeted killing strategy and its application mainly due to the novelty of this counterterrorism technique. Israel and the US are the two leading states in the hypothetical and practical use of this strategy. They intend to describe this strategy martially favorable by nature, thereby using it as the right of self-defense (i.e., legitimate defense) against terrorism. Even if the international law is assumed to explicitly accept the use of this strategy against terrorist leaders, Israel and the US face the criticism that they have victimized many leaders of liberal campaigns but not terrorist leaders by adopting this strategy. Evidently, mores play a key role in codifying the regulations of international law. At the same time, there are no internationally accepted legal procedures or agreements on the targeted killing strategy and its application. Accordingly, it is important to inhibit the procedures adopted by Israel and the US in the use of this strategy, as their uninhibited procedures will probably lead to the establishment of favorable mores in their martial doctrines. Ultimately, these mores will have even minor effects on the future regulations in the international law on this strategy. To stop the procedures adopted by the foregoing countries, the international law must firstly take a specific explicit stance on the effective indices in recognizing an individual or a group as terroristic in order to prevent the use of this strategy against the claimed terrorists. Secondly, a legal system should be developed to govern the use of this strategy to prevent diverse interpretations by a few countries and their consequent efforts to legitimize all actions that take in the name of counterterrorism. Apparently, the international community is not sufficiently determined to achieve the foregoing goals. Thus, it is essential to authenticate the regulations that are necessary for resorting to this strategy in the international law. Having reviewed a few cases of this strategy, the authors detected their legal flaws and then presented some regulations that should be complied with the states having to resort to this strategy in an effort to minimize any potential conflicts with the international law. In this regard, other countries are expected to ask the state resorting to this strategy to present the necessary explanations on noncompliance with the foregoing regulations. However, committing a targeted killing within the framework of the foregoing regulations will never mean the right to resort to this strategy. Compliance with these regulations can merely prevent the establishment of arbitrary mores that go against the evident principles of the international law. It can also help outline a legal system applicable to the use of this strategy at the time of wars. Undoubtedly, the targeted killing strategy has special advantages over the conventional means of counterterrorism. However, given the legal status quo of this strategy, it should be used as the ultimate counterterrorism action even in compliance with the foregoing regulations. Evidently, noncompliance with the proposed regulations can marginalize the commendable intentions of counterterrorism held by the responsible country, which will also face international liabilities.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ahani Amine, M., Zarif, M. J. (2013). Targeted Killing: Conflicting Foundations in International Law with Emphasis on US Targeted Killing Operations. Comparative Law Research Journal. 38(14). 1-30. (In Persian)
  2. Andersen, L. E. (2017). The Mole and the Mallet: Islamic State and al-Qaeda in the “Thirty Years” War’ in the Middle East. Connections, 16(1), 7–24. At: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26326467
  3. Carvin, S. (2012). The trouble with targeted killing. Security Studies, 21(3), 529-555. DOI: 1080/09636412.2012.706513
  4. Ebrahimzadeh, P., Molkizadeh, A. (2021). The Position of Pre-emptive Defense from the Perspective of International Law with Emphasis on Explaining International Legal Barriers to Its Application to Protect Civilians. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 18(2), 83-100. (In Persian)
  5. Eghbali, K. (2018). Information Warfare in Terms of the Principle of Distinction between Combatants and Civilians in the Armed Conflicts. Journal of Legal Research, 17(34), 71-109. (In Persian)
  6. Eid, M. (2014). The media amid terrorism and counterterrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(5), 842-854. DOI: 1080/09546553.2014.968025
  7. Hamourtziadou, L., Jackson, J. (2019). Winning wars: the triumphs and myths of technology. Journal of Global Faultlines, 6(2), 127–138. DOI: 13169/jglobfaul.6.2.0127
  8. Hass, M. C., Fischer, S. C. (2017). The evolution of targeted killing practices: Autonomous weapons, future conflict, and the international order. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(2). 281-306. DOI: 1080/13523260.2017.1336407
  9. Hatami, M. (2018). A Critique to the Theory of "US Government Targeted Killings" in the Light of the Fundamental Principles and Procedures of International Humanitarian Law. Critical Studies in Texts and Programs of Human Sciences, 18(5), 131-154. (In Persian)
  10. Kirchofer, C. (2016). Targeted Killings and Compellence: Lessons from the Campaign against Hamas in the Second Intifada. Perspectives on Terrorism, 10(3), 16–25. At: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26297593
  11. Kretzmer, D. (2005). Targeted killing of suspected terrorists: extra-judicial executions or legitimate means of defence?. European Journal of International Law, 16(2), 171-212.
  12. Laski, P. (2020). Remarks About Targeted Killing in the Light of Public International Law. Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review, 11, 59-66. DOI: 14746/ppuam.2020.11.03
  13. Lederman, M. S. (2018). THE LAW OF THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION. Columbia Law Review, 118(2), 323–490. At: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371823
  14. Lesani, S., Monfared. M. (2017). Contemplate on the Legitimacy of Targeted Killing Tactics under International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Legal Studies, 9(24), 245-276. (In Persian)
  15. Mason, V., Falk, R. (2016). Assessing Nonviolence in the Palestinian Rights Struggle. State Crime Journal, 5(1), 163–186. DOI: 13169/statecrime.5.1.0163
  16. Melzer, N. (2009). Targeted Killing in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, First Edition.
  17. Mohammad Poor, D. (2019). Secular/Religious Myths of Violence: The Case of Nizari Ismailis of the Alamut Period. Studia Islamica, 114(1), 47–68. At: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26745549
  18. Mohammadi, F., Shahesvari, E. (2018). Targeted killing in international law. Khorsandi Publications, Tehran, First Edition. (In Persian)
  19. Mouszadeh, R., Arbestani, Z. (2013). The fight against terrorism and the violation of the European Convention on Human Rights by European countries, emphasizing the performance of England and Spain. Journal of Foreign Policy, 4(25), 1087-1112. (In Persian)
  20. Mueller, K. P., Castillo, J. J., Morgan, E. F., Pegahi, N., Rose, B. (2017). STRIKING
    FIRST: Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Police. RAND
    CORPORATION    , Santa Monica, Third Edition, At:
    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdf
  21. Nematpour, A., Taghi Zade Ansari, M., Babri Gonbadi, S. (2021). Countering Terrorist Attacks on Critical Infrastructure of a Country in International Law. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 18(3), 165-185. (In Persian)
  22. Raisi, L., Mohammadzadeh Ebrahimi, F., Rostam Jabri, Sanaz. (2014). The anti-terrorism policy of the Obama administration and its legal and political consequences in international relations. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 6(24), 79-99. (In Persian)
  23. Ramazani Ghavamabadi, M. H. (2018). The Presence of the Trial and the Exceptions Imposed on it by the International Criminal Court. Criminal Law Research, 9(2), 155-182. (In Persian)
  24. Robinson, M. (2022). The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks: 20 Years Later. Journal of Crime and Criminal Behavior, 2(1), 1-28. DOI: 47509 /JCCB.2022.v02i01.01
  25. Sartipi, H., Bordbar, A., Mosuzadeh, M. (2012). Targeted killing in humanitarian law. Public Law Research, 14(38), 39-76. (In Persian)
  26. Senn, M., Troy, J. (2017). The transformation of targeted killing and international order. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(2), 175-211. DOI: 1080/13523260.2017.1336604
  27. Shelley, L. I. (2020). Illicit trade and terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism, 14(4), 7-20. At: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26927661
  28. Thrall, A. T., Cohen, J., Dorminey, C. (2020). Power, Profit, or Prudence? US Arms Sales since 9/11. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 14(2), 100–126. At: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26915279
  29. Walzer, M. (2016). Just & Unjust Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare. Daedalus, 145(4), 12–24. At: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24916780
  30. Williams, B. G. (2013). New Light on CIA “Double Tap” Drone Strikes on Taliban “First Responders” in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas. Perspectives on Terrorism, 7(3), 79–83. At: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26296941
  31. Yaoren, K. Y. (2019). Leadership Decapitation and the Impact on Terrorist Groups. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 11(3), 7–12. At: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26617828
  32. Zakerian, M. (2020). Distinctions of the legal response to possible coercion in
    international relations. Police International Studies, 11(44), 114-135. (In Persian)

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics