Targetted Killings - Armed Conflict or Human Rights Violation - Essay Example

Targetted killings - Armed Conflict or Human Rights Violation? Brief Outline of a Thesis Proposal Thesis ment The study aims to determine the legal and social acceptance of targeted killings, or assassinations, as a legitimate strategy in the “war on terror”. In order to accomplish this, it seeks to provide answers to the following 1. Whether the law on armed conflict allows targeted killings, and if it does, under what circumstances; 2. Whether the “war on terror” may be legitimately considered a “war” in which the law on armed conflict may be considered applicable; 3. Whether there were targeted killings or assassinations carried out during the present offensive in the so-called “war on terror”; 4. Whether such killings, if any, fall within the qualifications stipulated in the law on armed conflict; and 5. Whether such killings may, in the alternative, be considered as violations of human rights against the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. Background of the Topic 1. The modern war on terrorism is characterized by urban armed conflict and pockets of military engagements in confined areas where civilian population are ensconced. 2. The retreating insurgents seclude themselves unobtrusively among the residents of a thickly populated area forms part of their defense strategy, hopeful that the technically superior advancing forces would avoid an attack from the air, and instead send in forces on foot to flush out the enemy. 3. Aside from the civilian residents being used human shields, “collateral damage” that may be wreaked on them as a consequence of the military initiative, would put the attacking forces at a disadvantage in the court of public opinion. 4. In order to avoid unnecessary casualties, protagonists have resorted to targeted killings or assassinations in order to weed out strategic individuals with little or no collateral damage. 5. Such a ploy has been condemned by some groups such as Amnesty International as murder, inasmuch as death is meted out summarily without trial, and the “war on terror” is not really a war governed by the law on armed conflict, that the term is but rhetoric, and what should prevail is civil law that is applicable during times of peace. Review of Related Literature A. The nature of international conflict 1. Chiozza (2004) determined that the effect of conflict on the tenure of leaders is not ex post inefficient; i.e., defeat is costly for leaders of autocracies and mixed regimes, but not in democratic regimes where political institutions fundamentally mediate the costs and benefits of conflict and its outcome. Research also supports the finding that victory in war does not bring benefits, in terms of enhanced status or longer tenure for the incumbent leader. However, “popular” conflict may enhance the prospects of an office-seeking political leader, but as to how precisely and what factors are involved should still be a matter of further inquiry. The study asserts that a study focusing on the qualities of leaders may provide important new rationalist explanations for war. 2. Gartzke (2001) examined the effect of interdependence among countries as a deterrent to the outbreak of armed hostilities between them. The study found that it is likely that economic integration facilitates a reduction in the frequency of disputes by making it easier for states to engage in signalling short of military violence. Linkages among countries promote non-violent competition and peaceful conflict resolution, and this study has shown evidence that such a prospect is no longer merely utopian, but occurs in actuality. 3. Jones, Bremer and Singer (1996) examine militarized interstate disputes through empirical patterns in the participants, start and end dates, fatality totals, and hostility levels. Their examination of dispute escalation reveals that many disputes begin with uses of force rather than less intense threats or display of force, and that states joining an ongoing dispute raise the likelihood that higher levels of hostility will be reached. (Jones et al, 1996) B. The conflicting views on “Targeted Killings” 1. In a news article by Yoaz (2006) published in the Hareetz Daily News Israel, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the Israel Defense Force does not violate international law by adopting the policy of targeted killing of militants, but the legality of each targeted killing needs to be evaluated on a case-to-case basis. The article states that the decision by the three-justice panel of the high court, a legal precedent in international law and war crime law, qualifies the legality of the action, saying that every targeted killing cannot be determined in advance to be prohibited by customary international law. Thus the legal presumption shifts, evaluating the legality of the targeted killing only after the fact. The court specified four primary criteria as basis for the evaluation: 1.1 “Existence of ‘well-based, strong and convincing information’ regarding the individual’s terrorist activities; 1.2 “’A civilian taking a direct part in hostilities cannot be attacked if a less harmful means can be employed’; 1.3 “An independent, thorough investigation must be conducted after the attack to determine ‘the precision of the identification of the target and the circumstances of the [targeted killing]’; and 1.4 “Every effort must be made to minimize harm to innocent civilians, and ‘harm to innocent civilians caused during military attacks (collateral damage) must be proportional.’” (Yoaz, 2006) Furthermore, since a targeted killing essentially pertains to an attack on a civilian (as against a combatant) engaged in hostile activities, the attack may only be justified if it is carried out against a civilian who is currently involved in terrorism. Former operatives cannot be made the subject of a targeted killing. 2. The Policy Brief, dated May 2007, of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research of Harvard University, entitled “On the Legal Aspects of ‘Targeted Killings’: Review of the Judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court”, examined the landmark judgment of the Israeli High Court. In issuing the edict, the Court is observed to have contemplated a number of dilemmas “pertaining to the competence of the Court” in appreciating matters concerning the conduct of hostilities, the legal status of parties in interest, and the proportionality of targeted attacks. It was necessary for the court to base its discussion solidly on the tenets of international law and jurisprudence, in order to refute assertions that it was, by its pronouncement, creating “a new category of individuals that may be targeted at all times in situations of armed conflict.” (Harvard, 2007) In so doing, the Court in effect mitigated the more aggressive stance taken by the Government of Israel, and upheld the key principles of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The general legal framework advanced by the Court in this case is expected to further evolve its full implications with the consideration of future cases of this nature that may arise. 3. Doswald-Beck (2006), professor at the Graduate Institute for International Relations in Geneva and Director of the University Centre for International Humanitarian Law, examines the reach and breadth of IHL in addressing the issues of the right to life in armed conflict. It describes how the right to life is interpreted by human rights treaty bodies and how it impacts upon the acceptability of the use of force in armed conflicts. The apparent shortcoming of the IHL is its lack of clarity and simple citation of IHL provision is usually insufficient in interpreting its application in particular instances. The author concludes that, where the interpretation of IHL is specific and clear, then IHL can be considered as lex specialis. Given the situation where doubt exists, however, or where provisions of the IHL are too general to provide practicable answers, then human rights law should apply suppletorily, to fill the gap, “provided that this law is not incompatible with incompatible with the overall fundamental aim and purpose of the IHL.” (Doswald-Beck, 2006, p. 903) 4. Cullen (2008) defined “targeted killing” as “the intentional slaying of a specific individual or group of individuals undertaken with explicit government approval.” (p. 22). Col. Cullen is the Staff Judge Advocate of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell; through his study he sought to examine the “legality, morality and potential efficacy” of the U.S. policy of targeted killing in its efforts to stem transnational terror (Cullen, 2008, p. 22). The study concedes that a “carefully circumscribed policy of targeted killing” may be legal, moral, and effective for its purpose. Lacking these conditions, targeted killings may constitute extrajudicial assassinations which are prohibited by international law. The “terrorists” subject of targeted killing are civilians, not combatants, and should therefore be subject to conventional law enforcement methods “rather than the more permissive law of war.” On the other hand, it may be argued that the state threatened by terrorists has a right to self-defense. Cullen concludes that the long-term success of targeted killings as a policy depends on two capabilities: first, obtaining actionable intelligence to identify and locate targets; and second, convincing the domestic and international communities of its legality, morality, and effectiveness as a policy in dealing with terrorists. 5. The Amnesty International (AI) and CODESRIA report categorically state that not all killings are human rights abuses, particularly those killings that fall under criminal law, and those that unintentionally occur despite use by police of minimum force. Human rights violations occur in killings where the following three characteristics are present: 5.1 When the killings take place at the order, complicity or with the agreement of the authorities. 5.2 When the killings are deliberate (e.g., not occurred by accident or due to ignorance or self-defense 5.3 When the killings are unlawful (e.g., the violate national laws prohibiting murder or arbitrary deprivation of life; or the killing was effected without observance of the proper judicial or legal proceedings) Also, the killing constitutes a human rights abuse when they violate the laws of war prohibiting the killing or unarmed individuals and prisoners of war, or international norms prohibiting the arbitrary deprivation of life. 6. Patel (2004) elucidated on the insights of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) concerning Israel’s targeted killings of Hamas leaders in the Gaza territory. The ASIL has observed that while said tactics are often condemned as violations of international law and the human rights charter, the US has taken the stand that Israel had a right to defend itself, and uses the same reason for its ongoing pursuit against Osama Bin Laden. The article discusses the dilemma’s legal points revolving three issues: (1) the right to self-defense; (2) international humanitarian law; and (3) the principle of proportionality. It concludes that good faith analysis may lead to diverging views on the legality of Israel’s policy, raising serious questions of international law the answers to which are nebulous at best. There is uncertainty concerning the application of relevant law upon the circumstances of each particular case. 7. Kaplan (2006) discusses the legal and political implications of targeted killings from the background of the January 13, 2006 attack launched by a CIA-operated unmanned Predator aircraft against Damadola, a village in northern Pakistan. U.S. officials suspected Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy, to be about to meet with other extremists in Damadola, and therefore launched a military offensive in the town. Pakistani officials deny Zawahiri was in the village, although the attack had killed four lesser Al Qaeda members. At the same time, eighteen civilians (including five children) perished in the incident. This set off a wave of angry protests against the botched US attack. Kaplan examined past instances of targeted killings, successful and unsuccessful, both by the US and other countries, and the resultant damage to dwellers in the area. The author also gave a cursory account of how targeted killings are authorized by Presidential approval, empowered by Congressional resolution for him to use necessary and appropriate force to protect the US against terrorist attacks subsequent to Sept. 11, 2001. Proposed Methodology The research methodology proposed will follow a quantitative and qualitative component: qualitative, through a historical review and documentary search on specific past incidences involving targeted killings and the circumstances surrounding them; and quantitative, through deployment of a survey questionnaire among legal and political authorities; respondents shall be chosen through purposive sampling. REFERENCES Amnesty International & Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) 2001, Monitoring and Investigating Human Rights Abuses in Armed Conflict, Amnesty International Dutch Section, Keizersgracht BZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands Chiozza, G & Goemans, H E 2004, “International Conflict and the Tenure of Leaders: Is War Still Ex Post Inefficient?” American Journal of Political Science, vol 48 issue 3, July 2004. Cullen, P M 2008, “The Role of Targeted Killing in the Campaign against Terror,” Joint Force Quarterly (JFQ), issue 48, 1st quarter 2008, pp. 22-29. Doswald-Beck, L 2006, “The right to life in armed conflict: does international humanitarian law provide all the answers?” International Review of the Red Cross, vol 88 no. 864, Dec 2006, pp. 881-904 Doyle, M W & Sambanis, N 2002, Making War and Building Peace: The United Nations since the 1990s, Columbia University & Yale University. Gartzke, E 2001, The Classical Liberals were Lucky: A Few Thoughts about Interdependence and Peace, Dept of Political Science, Columbia University and the Mershon Center, Ohio State University, New York, NY Jones, D M, Bremer, S A, & Singer, J D (1996) “Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, Coding Rules and Empirical Patterns,” Conflict Management and Peace Science, vol 15 no 2, 1996, pp. 163-212. Kaplan, E 2006, Targeted Killings, Council on Foreign Relations. Available from: [29 May 2009] O’Reilly, P 2009, War, Trade and Economic Resources, Columbia University Department of Political Science, Apr 29. Available from: [29 May 2009] Patel, M 2004, “Israel’s Targeted Killings of Hamas Leaders”, American Society of International Law (ASIL) Insights, May 2004. Yoaz, Y 2006, “High Court: International law does not forbid targeted killings,” Hareetz Daily Newspaper Isreal, Israeli News Source, 14 Dec 2006. Available from: [29 May 2009] Read More