The legality of targeted killings operations under international law

Abstract

The September 11 attacks at the World Trade Center, in the United States, lead to the adoption of a staunch anti-terror policy not only there but also throughout the world. Governments passed normative instruments granting greater powers to the Executive branch and reducing liability for the consequences of State actions. The use of force as a preemptive agent, in the realm of anti-terror policies, stems from the fact that these measures, until recently, were carried out in the absence of judicial and public scrutiny. Since the death of Osama Bin Laden under the Obama administration and the execution of Qasem Soleimani by order of Donald Trump, targeted killings operations have proven to be an efficient weapon against the enemies of the State. What has made them pertinent nowadays, however, were the recent technological developments of combat drones which allow for an execution of near-infallible remote strikes. With that in mind, this paper intends to answer the following questions: can targeted killings operations be legal under International Law? If so, under what legal framework? To answer them, the paper will define, as a starting point, the terminology, moving on to the study of the applicable legal regimes, such as the use of force (jus ad bellum), International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and finally International Human Rights Law (IHRL). Then, it will analyze the disparities between the aforementioned regimes to demonstrate why IHRL is the best-suited legal framework. Finally, the paper will ascertain the legality of targeted killings operations, as long as they follow the additional criteria which would confer them legitimacy under IHRL.