The practice of targeted killings is not a recent phenomenon in International Law. It has been practiced over the years and has been debated. In recent times, the term was popularized by the killing of Osama bin Laden. On 2 May 2011, U.S. Special Forces conducted an operation in Pakistan in which Osama Bin Laden was killed. He was said to be the leader of the Al-Qaeda Terrorist Group that claimed responsibility for the September 9/11 attacks on the U.S. that resulted in the death of thousands. There have been several other incidents of this nature and it is important to determine the legality of such strikes in order to regulate them better. This study comparatively examines state practice of those nations including the U.S., Israel and Russia that have carried out targeted killings while paying special attention to the justifications put forth in defense of the practice. These defenses range from national security and self-defenses. The paper goes a step further to examine some court cases that have particularly dealt with the issue of targeted killings to ascertain the judicial attitude to the practice. It also looks at the main killing techniques which include kill or capture raids and air strikes from unmanned aerial vehicles known as drones. The targeted individuals are alleged terrorists or others deemed dangerous, and their inclusion in kill/capture lists is based on undisclosed intelligence applied against secret criteria. The number of targeted killings that have been specifically carried out by the US has steadily escalated through the different presidential administrations. With reference to some prominent incidents of targeted killings, this study will present an international law perspective analyzing whether this practice can be legally justifiable. The study also focuses on the interaction between international law and the practice of targeted killing. An examination of the pertinent principles of the two branches of international law will be necessary to determine which one is applicable and when. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / gm2014 / Public Law / unrestricted

The United States use of Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) or drones for targeted killings of terrorists has been on the rise in recent years and the method has become the core element of president Obamas strategy in the war against terror. This study examines the deterrent effect of targeted killings on terrorism using UCAV/drones as a method of counterterrorism. Building on the literature on counterterrorism, UCAV, targeted killings, deterrence theory and statistics on terrorism the study provides a case study of the CIA drone operations in Pakistan between the years 2004-2010. The goal has been to analyze drone operations and the extent of terrorism from the beginning of the drone campaign until 2010. This as a means of identifying possible trends in terrorism activity due to the occurrence of drone strikes. Findings suggest that the possibility of a deterrent effect is far from evident and that there are some indications of increased terrorism.

Thesis advisor: Charles Gallagher / Thesis advisor: Peter Krause / Drone strikes are sensational events. The United States Government uses remotely piloted aircraft (or drones) equipped with precisions weapons systems to unilaterally hunt and kill its enemies across the globe. The American public, and many around the world, are startled by the pervasiveness of American lethal force. In many ways, drone strikes are unprecedented. The technology, the frequency of use, and the geographic scope are all by-products of the twenty-first century. However, the United States government has a deep history of debating whether to kill individual enemies, and has a history of authorizing operations to do so. Beneath the rhetoric, the arguments, and the opinions that dominate drone policy today there is something missing: the history. This thesis argues that there are historical precedents for targeted killings and signature strikes in American history that predate the September 11 terrorist attacks and examining these past operations can inform modern policy. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2014. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: History.

In recent decades we can watch heated debates on the legal and moral permissibility of State-sponsored targeted killings involving representatives from Governments, academic circles, military and police forces, intelligence services, human rights groups, humanitarian institutions, intergovernmental organizations a and the mass media. These debates are even more intense after the killing of Osama bin Laden, leader of the terrorist group Al Qaeda, in May 2011. The aim of the thesis is to answer to the question: Are targeted killings a permissible method of fight against terrorism? The legality of targeted killings is analyzed in term of lex lata international law, namely under human rights law, international humanitarian law and law of international security. The thesis is composed of six chapters. Chapter One defines basic terminology used in the thesis. The Chapter is subdivided into two parts. Part One defines the concept of targeted killings. Part Two defines the notion of terrorism. Chapter Two examines the legality of targeted killings in term of law of international security. Chapter Three describes the parallel application of human rights law and international humanitarian law. Chapter Four analyzes the legality of targeted killings under human rights law. The Chapter is subdivided into two...

The purpose of this thesis is to determine how different variables can affect a terrorist group's reaction to a targeted leadership strike, known as a decapitation strike. Decapitation strikes often produce unwanted results, such as a splintering of the terrorist group, or a failure to destroy the group. It is important that we understand which variables can lead to a group's destruction after a decapitation strike, to maximize the decapitation's effectiveness. In my research I have determined that group size, group ideological extremism, and the role of the leader targeted all have a substantial impact on the success of the decapitation strike. Using these three variables, I will examine three groups which have varying size, extremism, and leadership, and determine whether the decapitation strikes were successful and how these variables affected the results.

In the last decade the fight against terrorism was carried out not only by measures indicated in national criminal procedure laws or international treaties outlining measures in the fight against terrorism, but also using military forces and carrying out military measures. Thus the dissertation aims to establish when and to what extent is the international humanitarian law (hereinafter – IHL) applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, to analyze in what cases the fight against terrorism amounts to armed conflict, what is the status of terrorists taking part in the armed conflict according to IHL, and to evaluate in the light of IHL principles and rules the specific measures taken against terrorists. Firstly the dissertation analyses the question of the definition of terrorism and proposes a possible definition of this phenomenon. Further on the dissertation analyzes the instances when the IHL rules are applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, when such situation amounts to an armed conflict, and evaluates the main criteria of armed conflict – intensity and organization – and their application in the fight against terrorism. The dissertation also explores the questions of the status of terrorists taking part in an armed conflict, distinguishing those taking part in international and non-international armed conflicts, and exploring the criteria for the direct participation in hostilities for such persons. Finally, the dissertation analyzes the specific measure of... [to full text] / Pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais kovą su terorizmu pradėta vykdyti ne tik pasitelkiant nacionaliniuose baudžiamojo proceso įstatymuose ar tarptautinėse sutartyse, skirtose kovai su terorizmu, numatytas priemones, tačiau ir naudojant karines pajėgas bei atliekant karinius veiksmus. Taigi disertacijoje iškeliamas tikslas nustatyti, kada ir kokiu mastu taikoma tarptautinė humanitarinė teisė (toliau – THT) kovoje su terorizmu, tai yra, ištirti, kokiais atvejais kova su terorizmu laikytina ginkluotu konfliktu, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT ir atsižvelgiant į THT normas įvertinti specifines kovos priemones, naudojamas kovojant su teroristais. Pirmiausiai disertacijoje analizuojamas terorizmo apibrėžimo klausimas ir pateikiamas galimas terorizmo apibrėžimas. Toliau disertacijoje vertinama, kuriais atvejais kovojant su terorizmu bus taikomos THT normos, tai yra, kada kova su terorizmu prilygsta ginkluotam konfliktui, tiriami ginkluoto konflikto intensyvumo ir organizuotumo kriterijai ir jų taikymas kovos su terorizmu situacijose. Disertacijoje taip pat tiriama, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT, išskiriant tarptautiniuose ir netarptautiniuose ginkluotuose konfliktuose dalyvaujančius asmenis, taip pat išsamiai išanalizuojant asmenų tiesioginio dalyvavimo ginkluotame konflikte kriterijus. Galiausiai disertacijoje tiriama specifinė kovos su terorizmu priemonė – tikslinių nužudymų, ypač naudojant... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

Les assassinats ciblés désignent l’utilisation étatique de la force létale avec l’intention préméditée et délibérée de tuer individuellement les personnes sélectionnées se trouvant en dehors des frontières nationales. Sont-ils légitimes au regard de notre compréhension des règles démocratiques et libérales ? Pour répondre à cette question, cette thèse de doctorat dresse une comparaison entre les pratique israélienne et américaine. Les assassinats ciblés participent d’une discussion sur la légitimité de l’assassinat politique en même temps qu’ils procèdent des évolutions des théories des bombardements et de l’utilisation préventive/préemptive de la force. (Chap. I) La discussion générale sur leur légitimité doit donc être complétée par une étude soulignant les spécificités nationales de ces politiques. (Chap. II) Israël et les États-Unis se sont servis de ces pratiques pour conduire une reformulation partielle du droit international. (Chap. III) L’absence de mécanismes efficaces de contrôle des normes juridiques lors de conflits armés pose problème. Nous évaluons les procédures et institutions existantes et proposons un élargissement du régime de responsabilité des drones proposés par Allan Buchanan et Robert Keohane aux opérations d’assassinats ciblés. (Chap. IV) Leur efficacité tactique ne garantit pas leur pertinence pour une stratégie de long terme contrant le terrorisme. (Chap. V) Leurs conséquences sur la politique étrangère sont-elles bénéfiques ? Nous montrons qu’ils contribuent à renforcer la souveraineté des États faisant la guerre aux « illégitimes ». (Chap. VI) Ceux-ci sont-ils compatibles avec les valeurs morales prônées par les démocraties israéliennes et américaines ? Ils promeuvent une conception libérale de l’action politique légitime en renouvelant les exigences de transparence à l’égard de l’utilisation secrète de la force. (Chap. VII) Ce débat ouvre des pistes pour un aménagement de la raison d’État en démocratie libérale en précisant le contenu théorique d’une moralité d’exception. (Chap. VIII). / The term “targeted killings” is commonly employed to refer to the intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force by states to kill selected individuals who are not in their custody. My research questions the justifications used to legitimize targeted killings within the liberal-democratic framework. I first give a chronological account of lethal practices pertaining to targeted killings and the context of their emergence. In the literature, targeted killings are discussed in reference to political assassination, theories of bombing in warfare and the use of preventive/preemptive force. (Chapter I) I then explore the national specific features of targeted killings by comparing Israeli with American discussion. (Chapter II) I analyze how targeted killings have been the spearhead of a recasting of legal obligations of Israel and the United States restricting use of force against irregular actors. (Chapter III) I then analyze national and international actual and hypothetical accountability mechanisms. I complete Allan Buchanan and Robert Keohane proposition of a “Drone Accountability Regime” by extending it to targeted killings. (Chapter IV) Their tactical efficiency does not guarantee their relevance for a long-term strategy aiming at countering terrorism. (Chapter V). What are their consequences on the international level? Targeted killings contribute to reinforce sovereignty of States waging war against “unlawful combatants”. (Chapter VI) Are they compatible with the moral values put forward by Israeli and American democracies? Targeted killings promote a new conception of legitimate violence by strengthening transparency demands towards secret use of force. (Chapter VII) This debate opens up avenues for “Raison d’État” in a liberal democracy by specifying the theoretical content of an exceptional morality. (Chapter VIII).

While the US-presidency comprises the most powerful office of leadership in the world and has also been investigated at various angles in personal, biographical approaches as well as comparative studies, this research paper specifically lays focus and compares the two presidencies of President Bush and President Obama in regard of their leadership qualities and counter-terrorism strategies. Because counterterrorism seems to be a good example of how presidents perform crises-management and because the subject by itself is critical in the perspective of human rights and security concerns, the research paper has chosen to focus on President Bush and President Obama who are known to have chosen different routes and strategies in countering terrorism. However, when comparing the two presidents’ leadership qualities regarding their counter-terrorism strategies, this paper concludes that on this matter the strategies of the two presidents were not quite so different as expected and a possible path of continuity runs through this realm of US-foreign affairs and presidents’ leadership decisions.

This thesis explores the ethical and legal implications of targeted killing operations employingCombat Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (CUAVs), focusing on the practices of the United Statesand Israel. Grounded in Just War Theory and international law, the research critically examineshow both nations justify these operations under the principles of self-defence and nationalsecurity. Through a comparative analysis of specific case studies, such as the assassinations ofQasem Soleimani and Baha Abu Al Ata, the study highlights the complexities of balancingsecurity imperatives with adherence to international humanitarian and human rights laws. Thefindings reveal significant ethical tensions, particularly concerning the principles ofproportionality, distinction, and the risk of extrajudicial killings. The lack of transparency andaccountability in drone operations further complicates their legitimacy. Additionally, itadvocates for comprehensive policy and legal reforms to enhance oversight and regulation,ensuring compliance with international standards and ethical norms. This research aims tocontribute to the ongoing discourse on modern military practices, urging a more just andaccountable framework for the use of lethal force in contemporary conflicts.

No description available.