This paper assesses U.S. national security policies in surveillance, detention, interrogation and torture, and targeted killing to determine whether they comport with international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The U.S. is responsible for adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Geneva Conventions. These human rights law documents can be understood through court decisions, congressional statutes, and widely accepted interpretations from organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the UN Human Rights Council. Further, this paper offers prescriptions on how international human rights law and international humanitarian law can be updated to better deal with the current war on terror. / text

"Mémoire présenté à la faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.)". Ce mémoire a été accepté à l'unanimité et classé parmi les 10% des mémoires de la discipline. / À la suite d'attaques terroristes massives est apparue une motivation féroce qui risque d'être manipulée pour justifier des excès de force. Voulant prévenir des attaques armées contre leurs intérêts, certains États ont adopté des politiques de « tuerie ciblée » pour éliminer de façon permanente des terroristes en sol étranger qui menacent leur sécurité. II est pourtant illégal de tuer des individus en l'absence de conflits armes sans égard au droit à la vie. La présente recherche tient à déterminer si, en vertu du droit international, des États peuvent neutraliser par force des individus dangereux ou bien venir au secours d' otages en sol etranger. En étudiant l'article 51 de la Charte des Nations Unies, un certain nombre de conclusions sont apparues, notamment que des opérations pour « arrêter ou neutraliser » ne peuvent avoir lieu que dans des États qui supportent des terroristes ou qui restent indifférents face à leur présence, et que I'expression « guerre contre Ie terrorisme » ne peut permettre des «tueries ciblées » sans avoir à considérer les droits à la vie et à la légitime défense. Puisque toute division entre les membres de la communauté internationale peut venir limiter la prévention d'attaques, le fait que la coopération entre les États ayant abolis la peine de mort et ceux ayant recours aux « tueries ciblées » puissent en souffiir fait l'objet de cet ouvrage. Ladite recherche conclue que l'utilisation de « tueries ciblées » en dehors du contexte de conflits armés ne peut être permis qu'en dernière mesure lorsque réellement nécessaire pour prévenir des attaques armées et protéger la vie. / From the ashes of devastating acts of terrorism has arIsen a resolve so powerful that measures of counterterrorism risk being manipulated by states to justify excess. In an attempt to prevent armed attacks against their interests, a number of states have adopted policies of targeted killing to permanently incapacitate terrorists on foreign soil. The intentional killing of suspected offenders, however, cannot be lawfully carried-out by states in the absence of armed conflict without regard for the right to life. The following research attempts to determine whether it is permissible for nations to use force on foreign soil to . incapacitate dangerous individuals or rescue hostages under international law. By studying article 51 selfdefense of the United Nations charter, a number of conclusions are asserted, namely that operations to "arrest or neutralise" can only be carried-out in states that support terrorists or are complacent to their presence, and that declaring "war on terrorism" cannot allow governments to kill suspected terrorists in countries where there is no war, except in a manner that is reconcilable with the rights to life and selfdefense. Since division among members of the international community may ultimately diminish their ability to collectively suppress international terrorism, the potential for hindered cooperation between abolitionist states and those that carry-out targeted killings is also addressed. The current research concludes that targeted killings can only be justified outside the context of armed conflict when they are truly necessary as a last resort to prevent armed attacks and save lives.

À la suite d'attaques terroristes massives est apparue une motivation féroce qui risque d'être manipulée pour justifier des excès de force. Voulant prévenir des attaques armées contre leurs intérêts, certains États ont adopté des politiques de « tuerie ciblée » pour éliminer de façon permanente des terroristes en sol étranger qui menacent leur sécurité. II est pourtant illégal de tuer des individus en l'absence de conflits armes sans égard au droit à la vie. La présente recherche tient à déterminer si, en vertu du droit international, des États peuvent neutraliser par force des individus dangereux ou bien venir au secours d' otages en sol etranger. En étudiant l'article 51 de la Charte des Nations Unies, un certain nombre de conclusions sont apparues, notamment que des opérations pour « arrêter ou neutraliser » ne peuvent avoir lieu que dans des États qui supportent des terroristes ou qui restent indifférents face à leur présence, et que I'expression « guerre contre Ie terrorisme » ne peut permettre des «tueries ciblées » sans avoir à considérer les droits à la vie et à la légitime défense. Puisque toute division entre les membres de la communauté internationale peut venir limiter la prévention d'attaques, le fait que la coopération entre les États ayant abolis la peine de mort et ceux ayant recours aux « tueries ciblées » puissent en souffiir fait l'objet de cet ouvrage. Ladite recherche conclue que l'utilisation de « tueries ciblées » en dehors du contexte de conflits armés ne peut être permis qu'en dernière mesure lorsque réellement nécessaire pour prévenir des attaques armées et protéger la vie. / From the ashes of devastating acts of terrorism has arIsen a resolve so powerful that measures of counterterrorism risk being manipulated by states to justify excess. In an attempt to prevent armed attacks against their interests, a number of states have adopted policies of targeted killing to permanently incapacitate terrorists on foreign soil. The intentional killing of suspected offenders, however, cannot be lawfully carried-out by states in the absence of armed conflict without regard for the right to life. The following research attempts to determine whether it is permissible for nations to use force on foreign soil to . incapacitate dangerous individuals or rescue hostages under international law. By studying article 51 selfdefense of the United Nations charter, a number of conclusions are asserted, namely that operations to "arrest or neutralise" can only be carried-out in states that support terrorists or are complacent to their presence, and that declaring "war on terrorism" cannot allow governments to kill suspected terrorists in countries where there is no war, except in a manner that is reconcilable with the rights to life and selfdefense. Since division among members of the international community may ultimately diminish their ability to collectively suppress international terrorism, the potential for hindered cooperation between abolitionist states and those that carry-out targeted killings is also addressed. The current research concludes that targeted killings can only be justified outside the context of armed conflict when they are truly necessary as a last resort to prevent armed attacks and save lives. / "Mémoire présenté à la faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.)". Ce mémoire a été accepté à l'unanimité et classé parmi les 10% des mémoires de la discipline.

The use of drones in conflicts is under development and is increasing rapidly. The first real drone warfare was seen in Pakistan in the War on Terrorism in 2004. Between officials and scientists, there are divided opinions about whether the drone strikes can increase terrorism or cause the collapse of organizations. The purpose of this thesis is to examine how the effectiveness of drones, in terms of precision and lethality, can be seen to escalate or de-escalate a conflict. The aim is to explore whether two existing theories about air power can explain the case of killing the Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, in 2020. As a qualitative case study, the approach results in favor of Pape´s theory over Warden´s. Pape says that decapitation is more likely to escalate a conflict, which confirms this case. Other explanations in his theory are the absence of unexpected political effects and the overthrow of government. Though Wardens theory shows some aspects of de-escalation, the conclusion is that Soleimani was not the center of gravity that was meant to cause system collapse. Further research is required since the findings cannot identify any escalating or de-escalating effects within the Quds Force.

L’objectif de ce mémoire est d’analyser les impacts et l’efficacité de la politique d’assassinats ciblés d’Israël dans le cadre du conflit israélo-palestinien. Pour ce faire, trois angles d’approches sont utilisés; militaire, légale et politique. Pour cette raison, l’hypothèse de départ soutient que la politique compromet la résolution du conflit et se divise en trois sections. Tout d’abord, les assassinats ciblés nuisent au règlement du conflit car ils engendrent un cycle de représailles contre Israël. Deuxièmement, ils représentent une violation du droit international ainsi que du droit national israélien. Finalement, ils sont un sérieux obstacle à la résolution politique du conflit dû au climat de violence et de méfiance qu’ils instaurent. Dans la conclusion, il est retenu que, bien que la politique d’assassinats ciblés ne soit pas efficace pour lutter contre les organisations terroristes, elle n’engendre cependant pas d’effet contreproductif de cycle de violence. Dans un second temps, la politique va à l’encontre de lois internationales mais elle peut cependant être justifiée par certains articles issus de ces mêmes textes alors que la Cour suprême israélienne a reconnu que certaines opérations pouvaient s’avérées légales. Troisièmement, elle nuit bel et bien à la résolution politique du conflit israélopalestinien en exacerbant les tensions de par le climat qu’elle instaure. Finalement, les nombreux impacts de celle-ci sur le conflit n’en font pas une politique efficace. / This goal of this thesis is to analyse the impact and effectiveness of the Israeli targeted killing policy within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To this end, three different approaches will be used; military, legal and political. Our hypothesis supports that the policy impedes the resolution to the conflict and is divided into three sections. First of all, Israeli targeted killings impede the conflict resolution because they, in turn, generate retaliations against Israel. Secondly it is a clear violation of international rights, including those of the Israelis. Finally, the policy is a serious obstacle to the settlement of the conflict due to the violent and distrustful atmosphere it arouses. In the conclusion, it is said that, although the policy does not prove to be an effective measure to fight terrorism, neither does it create an escalating cycle of violence. Secondly, the policy is a violation of the international legal system; however it can still be justified by some of the articles present in the same law texts. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that some of the operations could be legal. Thirdly, it is effectively detrimental to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because the ambiance it creates exacerbates tensions. In conclusion, the myriad of impacts the policy has on the conflict make it ineffective.

The aim of this thesis is to answer the question whether the U.S. policy on targeted killings with combat drones is compatible with the legal doctrine of just war theory, applicable international law, and human rights law. Moreover, this paper intends to examine the legal issues arising from the U.S. practice of international law in relation to the justification of targeted killings. The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the practice of targeted killings can be considered lawful and, if not, to provide knowledge about how the method violates applicable international law and the ethics of war. The focus is placed on relevant treaties and customary international law, and just war theory is used as a theoretical complement to explain the meaning and purpose of selected laws in order to determine their applicability to the research problem. Furthermore, this procedure has been conducted by using a legal method to identify the legal problem and interpret relevant sources of law in order to determine their applicability to the research problem. The thesis has determined that the U.S. policy on targeted killings with combat drones is not consistent with applicable international law and fundamental human rights law. In particular, the practice of targeted killings violates the principle of distinction.

The thesis analyses the legality of the use of drones in warfare based on the examination of three specific case studies. Firstly the use of armed drones in Afghanistan 2001 and 2002, then Pakistan drone strikes ongoing since 2004 and lastly the Yemen case study. A developed legal framework is used to assess the legality of the use of drones. Furthermore, it briefly touches upon the aspects of morality and ethics of the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles in combat.

The paper deals with the use of unmanned aircraft of the American national security policy. It examines the history of unmanned aviation, its military use, and cost- efficiency. It then examines the main obstacles and problems with their use in national security that this technology meets and will meet in the future after a higher level of autonomy is developed. These problems involve legal issues, international and domestic American law, the issue of civilian casualties, the role of the media, and public opinion. The final chapter focuses on the problems of technical, strategic and operational issues. In this section the research paper comes to the first conclusion which claims that the introduction of more autonomous systems to war will radically change its structure and, consequently, standard procedures and strategies. Case studies are included to illustrate how successful the drone strategy is applied in the five countries where the United States leads a war on terror. The research using the theory of the revolution in military affairs concludes that these UAVs pose the greatest challenge in history and it goes well beyond military matters. UAVs in national security affect the understanding of the basic principles of war in relation to the concepts of warrior ethos and just war.