Targeted Killings

Last updated

Targeted Killings
Targeted Killings book.jpg
Targeted Killings book cover
AuthorClaire Finkelstein
Jens David Ohlin
Andrew Altman
Original titleTargeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World
CountryUnited Kingdom
LanguageEnglish
Subject Targeted killing
GenreLaw
Publisher Oxford University Press
Publication date
30 April 2012 (2012-04-30)
Media typeHardcover
Pages440
ISBN 978-0199646470
OCLC 757147167
LC Class 2012933286

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World is a non-fiction compilation book about targeted killing edited by Claire Finkelstein, Jens David Ohlin, and Andrew Altman. It was published by Oxford University Press in 2012. The book grew out of contributions by the authors to a conference in April 2011 at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Targeted Killings features eighteen essays in five sections arranged by topic. The work argues that after the 11 September attacks by Al-Qaeda in 2001, the United States and other countries began to see the tactic of targeted killing differently. The practice of targeted killing had previously been accepted in situations of self-defence in military settings; after 11 September 2001 it was used to kill non-combatants and those not directly involved in a particular armed force.

Contents

The book begins with a discussion of targeted killing of non-combatants, followed by discussions of legalities, the rationale of self-defence, the choice of targets, and when and whether the ends can be used to justify the means. Several contributors defend targeting of non-combatants, while Jeremy Waldron discusses the morality associated with the tactic and argues against its use. Jeff McMahan identifies the problematic nature of targeted killing and emphasizes regulations for law enforcement to avoid abuse of process. Richard V. Meyer writes that any entity wishing to carry out targeted killing should first have to declare war on the targeted parties. Kevin H. Govern examines the elimination of Osama bin Laden and identifies this killing as justified and the product of a rational decision-making process. In the final portion of the book, Fernando Tesón says that targeted killing is particularly justified against terrorists because they use tactics specifically designed to kill civilians.

The book was well received in law reviews and by academics across multiple disciplines. Robin Geiß and Steven J. Barela praised its coverage of the legal, moral, political, and strategic aspects of targeted killings. [1] [2] Steven R. Ratner welcomed its addition to the academic literature, and Madeline E. Cohen wrote that it would be a useful reference for additional research. [3] [4] Abraham David Sofaer praised its treatment of the subject and tables, though he argued the book could have given more weight to the law enforcement model of the use of deadly force against individuals. [5]

Background

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World developed as an outgrowth from a conference in April 2011 that focused on philosophy and law. [2] The conference took place at the Institute for Law and Philosophy of the University of Pennsylvania. [1] Experts in the fields of public policy, politics, military regulations, battlefield knowledge, law, ethics, and philosophy discussed contemporaneous issues surrounding targeted killing in society. [2] The conference was titled "Using Targeted Killing to Fight the War on Terror: Philosophical, Moral, and Legal Challenges" and was organized by the University of Pennsylvania Law School. [6]

At the time of the book's initial print publication date, its editor Andrew Altman worked as Professor of Philosophy at Georgia State University and concurrently as director of research at the Jean Beer Blumenfeld Center for Ethics. Claire Finkelstein was the Algernon Biddle Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania and concurrently as co-director of the University of Pennsylvania Institute of Law and Philosophy. Jens David Ohlin was employed as an associate professor of law at Cornell Law School. [7] Ohlin's work had been published in academic journals, including the American Journal of International Law , the Columbia Law Review , and the Harvard International Law Journal . [8] He wrote the 2008 book Defending Humanity: When Force is Justified and Why with George Fletcher, which was also published by Oxford University Press. [9]

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World was published in hardcover format by Oxford University Press on 30 April 2012. [10] [11] A paperback version was published at the same time. [12] It was also published as an e-book for the Amazon Kindle by Amazon.com on 1 March 2012. [13] [14] In September 2012, the work was published at Oxford Scholarship Online. [7]

Content summary

A Predator drone, a weapon used in targeted killings MQ-1 Predator unmanned aircraft.jpg
A Predator drone, a weapon used in targeted killings

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World begins with an introduction by Andrew Altman. This is followed by eighteen essays broken into five sections arranged by topic. The work says that after the Al-Qaeda attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, the US and other countries began to see the tactic of targeted killing differently. The practice of targeted killing had previously been accepted in situations of self-defense in military settings; after the attacks it was used to kill non-combatants and those not directly involved in a particular armed force. [1] [5]

The first section of the book is a discussion of targeted killing of non-combatants. In an essay titled "Rebutting the Civilian Presumption: Playing Whack-a-Mole Without a Mallet?", Colonel Mark Maxwell criticizes the opposition of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to targeted killing. Maxwell writes that individuals may indeed serve a combat task without being a member of a particular state force. He argues for an extension of the definition of combatant to include those who arm themselves and engage in combat roles. "Targeting Co-Belligerents" by professor Jens David Ohlin supports Maxwell's opinion and describes an analytical viewpoint called "linkage" in which he states armed terrorists and members of organizations can be killed. Ohlin interprets the guidelines of the ICRC to include reliance upon a military system of identification of combatants. "Can Just War Theory Justify Targeted Killing" by professor Daniel Statman is an analysis of three thought processes used to discuss targeted killing rules: "contractualist", "collectivist", and "individualist". Statman writes that the tactic of targeted killing is a just form of combat in each of these analyses. New York University and Oxford University professor Jeremy Waldron deconstructs the morality associated with the tactic and argues against its use. He says that similar rationalizations could be used by the enemy against those conducting the targeted killings, there may be an inherent selection bias of targets, and warns of a slippery slope when defending an actor that uses the methodology. [1] [5]

In the second portion of the book, a group of articles discuss which sets of laws should be used to regulate targeted killing. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan of Rutgers University asks, "Targeted Killing: Murder, Combat or Law Enforcement?". He says that eliminating enemies for purposes of self-defense is justified. McMahan writes about the problematic nature of targeted killing and emphasizes regulations for law enforcement to avoid abuses of process. University of Pennsylvania law and philosophy professor Claire Finkelstein writes in "Targeted Killing as Preemptive Action" about the difficulties of rationalizing targeted killing outside of the realm of typical combat between state actors. Finkelstein characterizes people as noncombatants unless they are a member of a group that includes identification through standardized attire and criminal behaviour patterns. Mississippi College School of Law professor Richard V. Meyer writes that current regulations and standards for targeted killing are inadequate. He says that any entity wishing to carry out targeted killing should first have to declare war on the targeted parties involved. [1] [5]

The book's third group of essays analyzes the rationale of self-defence as a justification for targeted killing. Washburn University School of Law professor Craig Martin writes in "Going Medieval: Targeted Killing, Self-Defense and the Jus ad Bellum Regime" that self-defence is not an appropriate rationale for targeted killing because such a justification is restricted to conflicts between state actors. University of Tulsa School of Law professor Russell Christopher writes in "Imminence in Justified Targeted Killing" that self-defence should be ruled out as a suitable position in several examples of potential conflict. He critiques arguments by governments including the United Kingdom and the United States that self-defense can be used as a rationalization of action against imminent danger. Western Washington University emeritus philosophy professor Phillip Montague says in an essay titled "Defending Defensive Targeted Killings" that use of this tactic against combatants can be seen as defensible and justified acts against terrorism or those who assist terrorist organizations. [1] [5]

The fourth portion of the book discusses how to make specific choices in targeted killing situations prior to state actors carrying out actions against individuals. University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law professor Amos N. Guiora discusses "The Importance of Criteria-Based Reasoning in Targeted Killing Decisions" and concludes that instead of combatant commanders in the field, lawyers in consultation with decision algorithms must make decisions on targets. Pepperdine University School of Law professor Gregory S. McNeal critiques the arguments of those against targeted killing in his essay, "Are Targeted Killings Unlawful? A Case Study in Empirical Claims Without Empirical Evidence". He differentiates between decision-making processes of the United States military and those of the Central Intelligence Agency, emphasizing the U.S. military tactic of attempting to avoid collateral damage. Ave Maria School of Law associate professor Kevin H. Govern examines the killing of Osama bin Laden in his piece "Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military Objective?". He says this particular killing was justified and borne out of a rational decision-making process. American University Washington College of Law professor Kenneth Anderson distinguishes the use of military drones from targeted killing in his article "Efficiency in Bello and ad Bellum: Making the Use of Force Too Easy?". He says targeted killing as response to threats and to prevent potential terrorist attacks is justified. [1] [5]

The final portion of the book analyzes consequentialism within the scope of normative ethics and deontological ethics. Florida State University Tobias Simon Eminent Scholar Fernando Tesón writes in his essay "Targeted Killing in War and Peace: A Philosophical Analysis" that targeted killing is particularly justified against terrorists because they use tactics specifically designed to kill civilians. University of Illinois law and philosophy professor Michael Moore says in "Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices" that targeted killing can be seen as justified through both deontological and consequentialist models. University of Pennsylvania School of Law professor Leo Katz writes in "Targeted Killing and the Strategic Use of Self-Defense" that there is a danger of a state government artificially generating instances in which it asserts it must use targeted killing in self-defense. He warns against situations in which governments find it easier to kill terrorists than to put them through due process of law. Katz concludes that current regulations support targeted killing because existing law does not consider his argument and justifies the tactical elimination of terrorists. [1] [5]

Reception

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World was reviewed in the European Journal of International Law by University of Potsdam international and European law professor Robin Geiß. [1] The reviewer wrote that the book "is a thought-provoking contribution that takes a refreshingly broad and timely approach in addressing the legal, ethical, and strategic-political dimension of the contemporary debate over targeted killings". [1] Geiß concluded, "There is some overlap between the chapters, their relationship is not always evident, and as much as the interdisciplinary approach of this volume is to be appreciated, assembling and interlinking the different legal, ethical, and political findings in an overarching, concluding chapter would have been particularly useful. Nevertheless, the book reflects the entire spectrum of diverging views on the matter, and adds an important impetus to move the current debate forward." [1]

Assistant Professor and Head of Reference at Leonard Lief Library, Lehman College, City University of New York, Madeline E. Cohen wrote in an article for the International Journal of Legal Information, "Within the context of moral and legal principles, and military strategy, the subject of targeted killings is analyzed in great detail. These essays are interdisciplinary in their approach, and give various sides of arguments on this rich subject." [4] She concluded, "An excellent introduction by Andrew Altman provides an overview of 'Our Asymmetric World' and models used to combat terrorism. References, tables of cases and legal instruments are included making this an excellent reference for further research." [4]

Abraham David Sofaer reviewed the book for the Texas Law Review . [5] Sofaer wrote, "It is a beautiful book: large, with print size that is easy on the eyes, and with sufficient space between lines of text to make the complex material at least visually digestible. It has useful tables of cases, instruments, legislation, and abbreviations, as well as an index." [5] He commented, "it should be clear that a reader seeking a single, nonredundant and objective account of targeted killing should find another book. On the other hand, this collection of essays provides several original and useful treatments of various aspects of the subject." [5] Sofaer said that the book could have given more weight to the law enforcement model of how and when to use deadly force against individuals. [5]

The collection also received a review from University of Geneva postdoctoral research fellow in the faculty of law, Steven J. Barela, in the Journal of International Criminal Justice. [2] Barela described the book as "a constructive work with a wide purview onto one of the most pressing and difficult policy questions of our time". [2] He stated, "this volume provides a valuable entry point for investigating this kaleidoscope of legal and moral issues". [2] Steven R. Ratner of the University of Michigan Law School reviewed the book for the American Journal of International Law, writing, "In light of the complexity of the legal and moral issues, Targeted Killings is a welcome addition to the academic literature. It aims to combine in one volume perspectives from legal experts, moral philosophers, and military planners." [3] University of Reading law lecturer Robert P. Barnidge Jr. wrote in the Boston University International Law Journal , "Targeted Killings also provides some clarity as to the threshold between armed conflict and situations falling short of armed conflict". [15] He concluded, "[the book's] main contribution to the discussion lies in its focus on the willing use of violence on a significant scale by an organized group". [15]

See also

Targeted killing

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assassination</span> Murder of a prominent person for personal gain

Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important. It may be prompted by grievances, notoriety, financial, military, political or other motives. Many times governments, corporations, organized crime or their agents order assassinations. Acts of assassination have been performed since ancient times. A person who carries out an assassination is called an assassin or hitman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jurisprudence</span> Theoretical study of law

Jurisprudence is the philosophy and theory of law. It is concerned primarily with what the law is and what it ought to be. That includes questions of how persons and social relations are understood in legal terms, and of the values in and of law. Work that is counted as jurisprudence is mostly philosophical, but it includes work that also belongs to other disciplines, such as sociology, history, politics and economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Just war theory</span> Doctrine about when a war is ethically just

The just war theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">H. L. A. Hart</span> English legal philosopher (1907–1992)

Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart was an English legal philosopher. He was the Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University and the Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford. His most famous work is The Concept of Law, which has been hailed as "the most important work of legal philosophy written in the twentieth century". He is considered one of the world's foremost legal philosophers in the twentieth century.

Lon Luvois Fuller was an American legal philosopher best known as a proponent of a secular and procedural form of natural law theory. Fuller was a professor of law at Harvard Law School for many years, and is noted in American law for his contributions to both jurisprudence and the law of contracts. His debate in 1958 with the prominent British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart in the Harvard Law Review was important in framing the modern conflict between legal positivism and natural law theory. In his widely discussed 1964 book The Morality of Law, Fuller argues that all systems of law contain an "internal morality" that imposes on individuals a presumptive obligation of obedience. Robert S. Summers said in 1984: "Fuller was one of the four most important American legal theorists of the last hundred years".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Austin (legal philosopher)</span> English legal philosopher (1790–1859)

John Austin was an English legal theorist who posthumously influenced British and American law with an analytical approach to jurisprudence and a theory of legal positivism. Austin opposed traditional approaches of "natural law", arguing against any need for connections between law and morality. Human legal systems, he claimed, can and should be studied in an empirical, value-free way.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Finnis</span>

John Mitchell Finnis is an Australian legal philosopher and jurist specializing in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. He is an original interpreter of Aristotle and Aquinas, and counts Germain Grisez as a major influence and collaborator. He has made contributions to epistemology, metaphysics, and moral philosophy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Raz</span> Israeli philosopher (1939–2022)

Joseph Raz was an Israeli legal, moral and political philosopher. He was an advocate of legal positivism and is known for his conception of perfectionist liberalism. Raz spent most of his career as a professor of philosophy of law at Balliol College, Oxford, and was latterly a part-time professor of law at Columbia University Law School and a part-time professor at King's College London. He received the Tang Prize in Rule of Law in 2018.

Targeted killing, or assassination is a tactic that the government of Israel has used during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, and other conflicts.

Jus post bellum is a concept that deals with the morality of the termination phase of war, including the responsibility to rebuild. The idea has some historical pedigree as a concept in just war theory. In modern times, it has been developed by a number of just war theorists and international lawyers. However, the concept means different things to the contributors in each field. For lawyers, the concept is much less clearly defined, and many have rejected the usefulness of the concept altogether. The concept continues to attract scholarly interest in the field of international humanitarian law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Menachem Finkelstein</span> Military Advocate General of Israel

Menachem Finkelstein was Israel's Military Advocate General from 2000 to 2004, during the height of the Second Intifada.

Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Farqad ash-Shaybānī, the father of Muslim international law, was a Muslim jurist and a disciple of Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas and Abu Yusuf.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brian Leiter</span> American philosopher and legal scholar

Brian Leiter is an American philosopher and legal scholar who is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and founder and Director of Chicago's Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values. A review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews described Leiter as "one of the most influential legal philosophers of our time", while a review in The Journal of Nietzsche Studies described Leiter's book Nietzsche on Morality (2002) as "arguably the most important book on Nietzsche's philosophy in the past twenty years."

<i>Targeted Killing in International Law</i> Book by Nils Melzer

Targeted Killing in International Law is a book about the legality of targeted killing, written by Nils Melzer. It was first published by Oxford University Press in May 2008. The book explores the history of targeted killing as a government strategy by multiple countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Switzerland and Germany; for both military and law enforcement purposes. Melzer argues that directly after the September 11 attacks in the United States, perceptions of the tactic became more positive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Targeted killing</span> Removal of enemy combatants by governments against enemy forces.

Targeted killing is a form of assassination carried out by governments outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield.

Human shields are legally protected persons—either protected civilians or prisoners of war—who are either coerced or volunteer to deter attacks by occupying the space between a belligerent and a legitimate military target. The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. It is also a specific intent war crime as codified in the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998. The language of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibits "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations."

Claire Finkelstein is the Algernon Biddle Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and the Director of its Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law.

Hugo John Robertson Slim is a British academic and policy advisor in International Relations specialising in the ethics of war and humanitarian aid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genocide justification</span> Attempts to claim genocide is a moral action

Genocide justification is the claim that a genocide is morally excusable/defensible, necessary, and/or sanctioned by law. Genocide justification differs from genocide denial, which is the attempt to reject the occurrence of genocide. Perpetrators often claim that genocide victims presented a serious threat, justifying their actions by stating it was legitimate self-defense of a nation or state. According to modern international criminal law, there can be no excuse for genocide. Genocide is often camouflaged as military activity against combatants, and the distinction between denial and justification is often blurred.

Jens David Ohlin is an American academic administrator and legal scholar. He became the Allan R. Tessler Dean of Cornell Law School on July 1, 2021.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Geiß, Robin (May 2013). Claire Finkelstein; Jens David Ohlin; Andrew Altman (eds.). "Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. Roland Otto. Targeted Killings and International Law. William H. Boothby. The Law of Targeting" (PDF). European Journal of International Law . 24 (2): 722–729. doi: 10.1093/ejil/cht028 . ISSN   0938-5428 . Retrieved 30 September 2013.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Barela, Steven J. (March 2013). "Claire Finkelstein, Jens David Ohlin and Andrew Altman (eds), Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 11 (1): 277–282. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqs073. ISSN   1478-1387. Archived from the original on 27 May 2013. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
  3. 1 2 Ratner, Steven R. (January 2013). "Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World". American Journal of International Law. 107 (1): 274–278. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0274. ISSN   0002-9300.
  4. 1 2 3 Cohen, Madeline E. (Winter 2012). "International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: A Critical Annotated Bibliography for Collection Development". International Journal of Legal Information. International Association of Law Libraries. 40 (3): 493. doi:10.1017/S0731126500011422. S2CID   155969155.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sofaer, Abraham David (March 2013). "Book Review: Targeted Killings from Many Perspectives". Texas Law Review . Texas Law Review Association. 91 (4): 925–938. ISSN   0040-4411.
  6. Chiesa, Luis E.; Greenawalt, Alexander K.A. (Summer 2012). "Beyond War: Bin Laden, Escobar, and the Justification of Targeted Killing". Washington & Lee Law Review . Washington & Lee University School of Law. 69: 1371.
  7. 1 2 Finkelstein, Claire; Ohlin, Jens David; Altman, Andrew (September 2012). Finkelstein, Claire; Ohlin, Jens David; Altman, Andrew (eds.). "Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World". Oxford Scholarship Online. www.oxfordscholarship.com. 1. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.001.0001. ISBN   9780199646470.
  8. Post, Paul (25 March 2012). "Guest lecturer Jens Ohlin questions legality of modern warfare, War on Terror". The Saratogian.
  9. Staff writer (19 March 2012). "Cornell University law professor and former Saratogian reporter Jens Ohlin to deliver lecture at Skidmore College on targeted killings". The Saratogian . Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2014.
  10. Finkelstein, Claire; Ohlin, Jens David; Altman, Andrew (30 April 2012). Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0199646470.
  11. OCLC (2012). "Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World". WorldCat . www.worldcat.org. OCLC   757147167.
  12. Finkelstein, Claire; Ohlin, Jens David; Altman, Andrew (30 April 2012). Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0199646487.
  13. Finkelstein, Claire; Ohlin, Jens David; Altman, Andrew (1 March 2012). Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. OUP Oxford; Amazon Digital Services, Inc. ASIN   B008UT9DQA.
  14. OCLC (2012). "Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World". WorldCat . www.worldcat.org. OCLC   806038986.
  15. 1 2 Barnidge Jr., Robert P. (Summer 2012). "A qualified defense of American drone attacks in Northwest Pakistan under international humanitarian law". Boston University International Law Journal . Trustees of Boston University. 30: 409.

Further reading