Modern warfare in general, and targeted killing (TK) in particular, challenge conventional legal paradigms. While some contend that targeted killing is a clear violation of law, others argue that it is the law that should adapt to its modern context. In this thesis, I argue in favor of the latter. I will first explain the two dominant paradigms through which one can interpret TK: law enforcement versus armed conflict, going on to argue that an armed conflict paradigm can be legitimately invoked. In sections IV and V, I examine the rights and status of targeted individuals in modern conflict. I will then explore Jeremy Waldron’s objection to TK—that its potential for abuse outweighs its utility. I conclude by arguing that TK, like all warfare, is justified only by the unacceptability of its alternative, and that the justification of all warfare abides under the same pragmatic presumption.

History has shown that assassination could be wielded as an effective weapon in the pursuit of interest, security and power. As the feudal age neared its end in Europe, nation states emerged. Despite its pragmatic usefulness, assassination was considered unfit for this new form of governance. States no longer sought to destroy one another as predicted by Thomas Hobbes, but adhered to John Locke's proposed values, which believed that states could mutually exist as rivals. In this system which favored negotiation and settlements, it was difficult for assassination to have a place. Yet at the start of the 21st century, assassination once again saw employment. As of today, it is preferably referred to as targeted killing by its employers and has become somewhat of a 'new normal.' Clearly, there must be certain permissive catalysts that allowed this to happen. This master's thesis firstly explores the ways the United States, Israel and Russia conduct their assassination/targeted killing operations to present the unique ways these states eliminate their enemies, and secondly pinpoints the permissive causes that allowed these three super and great powers of assassination to transform the international norm against assassination and turn a dishonest, immoral practice into something more acceptable and fit...

Unmanned combat aircraft systems (UCAS) represent a certain type of modern technology the States use to counter the growing number of security threats coming from the various non-state actors. The thesis focuses on the most common use of UCAS in the fight against these threats, on the practice called targeted killing. The purpose of the thesis is to identify all conditions amongst the norms of international law pertaining to the use of force between States, international human rights law and international humanitarian law, which are relevant for the targeted killing through UCAS. Furthermore, the thesis seeks to set out the circumstances, under which this practice can satisfy the relevant conditions, and when, on the other hand, it is never lawful. The thesis is composed of four chapters. The First Chapter defines the key terms used in the thesis and clarifies the terminology relating to UCAS. It also offers a short overview of their technical specifications and capabilities and identifies the States, which own, develop and sell the technology. The following three chapters represent the analytical core of the thesis and set out the conditions for the use of UCAS found in three systems of international law. The Second Chapter examines the use of UCAS from the perspective of the prohibition on the...

The United States has justified targeted operations against suspected terrorists as a legitimate tool in the war against terrorism. In response to international criticism that a November 2002 targeted killing operation in Yemen violated human rights standards, the US asserted that the right to life was suspended during war. While this assertion is prima facie incorrect, many legal experts, scholars and authors agree in principle that a military response to international terrorism -- along with the concomitant dilution of the right to life -- is not only appropriate, but also complies with international law. However, the modern jus ad bellum limit the circumstances in which a state may lawfully resort to armed force. A fulsome understanding of international humanitarian law and the characteristics of groups such as Al Qaeda reveals that international law does not permit states to employ their military forces to responde to the international crime of international terrorism.

The United States has justified targeted operations against suspected terrorists as a legitimate tool in the war against terrorism. In response to international criticism that a November 2002 targeted killing operation in Yemen violated human rights standards, the US asserted that the right to life was suspended during war. While this assertion is prima facie incorrect, many legal experts, scholars and authors agree in principle that a military response to international terrorism -- along with the concomitant dilution of the right to life -- is not only appropriate, but also complies with international law. However, the modern jus ad bellum limit the circumstances in which a state may lawfully resort to armed force. A fulsome understanding of international humanitarian law and the characteristics of groups such as Al Qaeda reveals that international law does not permit states to employ their military forces to responde to the international crime of international terrorism.

During the Second Intifada, Israel shocked the international community by becoming the first country in the world to publically announce an overt policy of targeted-killing. While utilized by Israel in previous conflicts, the Second Intifada was a turning point in Israeli history due to a series of dramatic changes introduced to its targeting policy which would sharply contrast those which were previously utilized. This diploma thesis analyzed thirty-eight cases of Israeli targeting operations conducted both before and during the Second Intifada to determine if the changes made to its policy during the Second Intifada resulted in more or less successful targeting operations compared to those conducted prior to this time period. The results of this study indicated that, following the introduction of the aforementioned policy changes, Israeli targeting operations during the Second Intifada were less successful than those conducted prior to this time period.

In this essay I examine whether the CIA operatives can be considered as legitimate practitioners of violence in a conflict situation, thus looking through a lens where terrorism is treated as an act of war. This paper does not purport to evaluate and review the legality of targeted killing as a mean of warfare or a tool for criminal enforcement but rather the CIA agent’s status from an international law perspective, specifically humanitarian law. I further examine the role of CIA operatives from a moral perspective. Using the framework set up by Just War Theory I examine whether a CIA operative is regarded as a combatant or a civilian from a moral standpoint.

Within the fight against terrorism, conflicts may arise between the interest of the state to maximize the effectiveness of methods of combating terrorism and the international standard of human rights. One of the methods that some states carry out to combat terrorism is targeted killing. Legitimate effort of states to suppress terrorism and may not lead to violations of human rights. The thesis aims to answer the question: "Is targeted killing a permissible method of combating terrorism, in terms of the lex lata of human rights law, humanitarian law and rules for the use of force between states?" Regarding the methodology of the thesis I was inspired by the books: "Vědecká propedeutika pro právníky" by Viktor Knapp," Metodologie vědy" by František Ochrana and "Jak studovat politiku" by Peter Drulák. The thesis consists of four chapters. The objective of the first chapter is descriptive. The first chapter should clarify the terminology and content of key concepts. The content of the second chapter is an analysis of the legality of targeted killings under human rights law. The third chapter examines the conditions of legality of targeted killings in humanitarian law. Chapter Four deals with the admissibility of targeted killings in the light of law of interstate force. Through an analysis of...

The United States increasingly has resorted to the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for targeted killings of terrorists as a counterterrorism strategy. More states and terrorist organizations also are acquiring UAVs and this development can lead to indiscriminate and unregulated use of UAVs. Previous researchers have indicated the surveillance ability and precise weapon delivery capacity of UAVs make them a weapon of choice for U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Although the U.S. government estimated the collateral damage involved in the use of UAVs at 3-5%, nongovernmental sources put it at 25-40%. A gap exists in the current literature regarding public perception of the use of UAVs as a counterterrorism measure and how international humanitarian law (IHL) may interpret employment of UAVs. The purpose of this quantitative, cross-sectional study is to determine if a relationship exists among public support of the use of UAVs for targeted killing, attitudes towards counterterrorism, and public perceptions of IHL. An online survey was used to collect data from 104 adult participants using the convenience sampling method. Logistic regression, ANOVA, and correlational analyses helped to determine the relationships. The outcomes contributed to the existing literature by providing important data related to public perception of the use of UAVs with the potential to enhance global peace and security. The results contributed to social change initiatives through the potential to facilitate the establishment of international and domestic legal frameworks to regulate the future employment of UAVs for targeted killing.

On January 3, 2020, Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani was killed through a targeted drone strike at the authorisation of the US President Donald Trump. This thesis examines if, and in that case how, the arguments presented by the Trump administration used to justify the killing of general Soleimani are in line with the principles of Just War theory. By conducting a case study, through a qualitative content analysis, analysing four official statements made by the Trump administration during a two months period after the killing, this thesis will examine the moral discourses in the arguments presented. Drawing on insights from studies regarding the justification of War on Terror, preemptive war, and targeted killings according to the Just War theory, lays the foundation for a deeper reasoning of the legality of the argumentation based on the principles of Just War. This thesis will show that in some aspects, the arguments presented by the Trump administration can be interpreted to be in accordance with one of the principles, but none of the statements satisfy the criteria in all of the principles. Therefore, the overall conclusion of this analysis is that the Trump administration has the intention of justifying the attack, but the arguments used are not rooted in Just War theory. Further, this thesis will also show an inconsistency over time in the arguments presented. The contribution from this study lays in the analysis of the arguments on the basis of the principles of Just War theory, not from the perspective of international law. The intention from this thesis is not to analyse if the attack itself can be seen as just according to Just War theory but looking at the argumentation presented by the Trump administration.