The targeted killing of terrorists on foreign soil - Institute of Advanced ...

Tobias Ruettersh<strong>of</strong>f
Panel 4 (a)
flawed in the sense that they only refer to the Palestinian conflict and rely on small amounts
<strong>of</strong> data and short time frames. Analyses from other conflicts such as Afghanistan show a
different result (see Wilner 2010, 318 f.).
Overall, the issue <strong>of</strong> legitimacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong>s depicts a complex picture. <strong>The</strong>y can only
be considered legitimate when there are strong arguments in favour <strong>of</strong> it and when it is
effective. As demonstrated, the positive sides <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong> outweigh the
negative sides. <strong>The</strong> ‘input’ side <strong>of</strong> the legitimacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong> can thus be affirmed.
However, the “output” side <strong>of</strong> legitimacy concerning effectiveness is more difficult. Even
though descriptive data seems to assert the notion that <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong>s are effective in the
case <strong>of</strong> Israel, it is not corroborated by other (rather flawed) analyses. In this instance, more
research and a more comprehensive analysis is needed to fill the gap.
5 Conclusion
"If given a choice between <strong>killing</strong> or capturing, we would probably kill."
⎯ Sen. Christopher S. Bond, February 2010 15
This paper analysed the legality and legitimacy aspects <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong> as
differentiated, herein, from other state-sanctioned actions such as ‘assassination’ and ‘extrajudicial
<strong>killing</strong>’. It argues that <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong> can be justified under international law if
strong legal restraints are observed. Moreover, in terms <strong>of</strong> legitimacy, <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong> can be
seen as a viable tool <strong>of</strong> counter-terrorism, because the benefits outweigh the negative aspects
<strong>of</strong> it. However, concerning effectiveness, more research is needed to make a qualified
assessment.
It was found that <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong> decisively differs from other forms <strong>of</strong> state-sanctioned
<strong>killing</strong>s such as ‘assassinations’ or ‘extra-judicial <strong>killing</strong>s’. Targeted <strong>killing</strong> denotes the use
<strong>of</strong> lethal force by a state with the intent, premeditation and deliberation to kill individual
<strong>terrorists</strong>. By looking at the historical background, it became obvious that the policy <strong>targeted</strong>
<strong>killing</strong>s is certainly not a new development but has been used by Israel and the United States
in several other (asymmetric) conflicts. In the main part, the legality and legitimacy <strong>of</strong> such
actions were carefully analysed. Firstly, the legality <strong>of</strong> <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong> under international
law was assessed. In a first step, a decision had to be made whether <strong>targeted</strong> <strong>killing</strong> was to be
classed under a law-enforcement paradigm or a war paradigm. It was found that the terrorist
15 DeYoung/Warrick 2010.
- 29 -