The Legal Framework Of Targeted Killings

3545 WordsOct 1, 201415 Pages
Chapter Two The Legal Framework of Targeted Killings. The permissibility for the loss of the right to life must be assessed against the legal framework in which the loss of life is taking place e.g. in relation to the use of inter-state force, outside an armed conflict or within one. These three situations are governed by the legal frameworks the laws applicable to the use of inter-state force, IHRL and IHL (Alston 2010). While all three frameworks can be applied simultaneously to the same targeted killing, each of them regulates the use of force from an entirely different perspective. The laws of inter-state force aim to protect the State themselves and is linked with the paradigm of self-defence. IHRL and IHL both, protect the…show more content…
As with any law, there are always exceptions to the rule and in this particular circumstance there are two. The use of force can be justified under the laws of inter-state force if: (i) State A consents to the actions of State B. Here, both States would be bound by IHL and IHRL. State A must, and at all times, protect those within its territory from arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. State B must be able to demonstrate that the individual, to whom the force is being carried out against, can be targeted legally and that they will comply with all the applicable laws. State A must be able to verify this and investigate the use of force thereafter. If there are findings of wrongdoings by State B, State A must seek prosecution and compensate the victim (Alston 2010:12). (ii) State B has a right to use force in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter (Schmitt 1992:621). To do so, State B must be able to demonstrate that either, State A is responsible for an armed attack against them or that they are unwilling or unable to stop the armed attack against State B that is being launched from its territory (Alston 2010:12). In the PCATI case, Israel attempts to justify its policy on targeted killings under Article 51, the right to use force in self-defence against an ‘armed attack’. Here, Israel concentrates on the wording ‘armed attack’ and acknowledges that although there is much legal debate surrounding the exact meaning of the words ‘armed attack’,
Open Document