Legal Frontiers: Targeted Killing at the Borders of War

Abstract

The American embrace of “targeted killing” outside traditional theaters of war has proved highly contentious in recent years. According to detractors, the practice constitutes unlawful political murder or assassination. In contrast, proponents suggest the United States is engaged in a transnational, noninternational armed conflict with Al Qaeda and is thus permitted to kill enemy belligerents. This article demonstrates that arguments in favor of targeted killing are emblematic of the “Global War on Terror” to date, which has sought to limit the application of human rights rules in favor of a war paradigm, to expand the meaning of combatancy, and to erode the geographical borders of armed conflict. These dynamics highlight a critical paradox at the heart of US counterterrorism policy. The more legality is strategically invoked to legitimize security practices, the less able it is to substantively limit state violence and to protect human rights.

Notes

¹Since the time of writing, a Department of Justice memorandum approving the killing has been declassified (see Savage 2014). A subsequent white paper addressing the CIA's role in targeted killing has also become available (see Leopold 2014).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rebecca Sanders

Rebecca Sanders received her PhD in Political Science from the University of Toronto in 2012. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio, where she teaches human rights, international law, terrorism and insurgency, and international ethics. Her research examines the role of legal constraint in shaping contentious American counterterrorism practices and the implications for human rights protection.