Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

How Can Targeted Killings Be Justified?

On Wednesday, Israel began its broadest attack against Gaza in years with a pinpoint airstrike that killed the military leader of Hamas. In Pakistan and Yemen, the United States has used drones to kill members of Al Qaeda. The legality and morality of such actions, and whether they constitute government-sponsored murder, have long been questioned. Are targeted killings by governments ever appropriate?
* pinpoint = 정확히 찾아내다; 묘사하다/ drone = 무인 항공기; 수벌/ morality = 도덕(성)/ constitute = ~이 되는 것으로 여겨지다/ assassination = 암살

 정부에 의한 선별된 살인이 언제나 적절한가?

1. The Rule of Proportionality
Assassination will often be the least bad alternative in an inevitable choice of evils.
 
2. Lawful Versus Wise Policy
Decades of Israeli assassinations of Palestinian leaders have produced only more opposition to Israeli policies.
 
3. Transparency and Accountability
The U.S. has conducted targeted killings in nonbattlefield settings and refused to provide even the minimal amount of information to determine justification.
 
4. A Carefully Calibrated Attack
Critics refer to assassinations as “unethical,” but the only unethical action you can take in warfare is the failure to act in the best interest of your people.
 
5. Precision Saves Lives
Some think killing a nameless enemy is an act of war but targeted assassination is murder. They’re mistaken.

Sample Essay

Transparency and Accountability

Targeted killings are justified against significant and imminent threats of violent attack against a state's territory.

They would require the aggressor state to provide an articulation of which international laws apply, so it can be held accountable for its actions. In addition, when targeted killings occur in a state outside of an aggressor’s territory, it should articulate whether it was done with the consent of the state, or was a violation of sovereignty.

Furthermore, targeted killings necessitate transparency regarding what procedural safeguards are in place to assure the principles of proportionality and distinction are being met when using lethal force.

Finally, an aggressor state should provide a public account of what processes are in place to investigate accidental civilian casualties, hold willful perpetrators of those actions accountable, and provide compensation to the families of unintended victims.

Targeted killings are exceedingly rare in the world, and routinely conducted by only a handful of states, like the United States, Israel and Turkey. Of them, only the United States has provided some justification for its actions. The Obama administration says that it uses lethal force only against “high-level” or “senior” members of Al Qaeda, who, in President Obama’s words, “would pose an imminent threat the United States of America.”

It also claims that its targeted killings comply with all applicable international law, without articulating which bodies of laws apply, but only claiming that they “are complimentary.” It also will not admit whether it receives the consent of states where the attacks take place, describe any procedural safeguards that would cover such actions as “signature strikes,” or acknowledge the existence of post-attack assessments or corrective actions.

Though the United States has conducted more than 400 targeted killings in nonbattlefield settings in the past 10 years, it has refused to provide even the minimal amount of information to determine whether they could be justified.