CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

CYIL 11 (2020) LEGALITY OF TARGETED KILLINGS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW modern era knows of many political assassinations at national and international levels. In the U.S. alone, e.g. president A. Lincoln was assassinated in Ford’s theatre in Washington in 1865 and president J. F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on 22 November 1963. On the other hand, President Kennedy himself sanctioned several operations to kill Cuban leader F. Castro. However, all these attempts failed. The U.S. was also implicated in other cases, inter alia , in executions of Congolese president Patrice Lumumba in 1961 and Ngô Đình Diêm, president of South Vietnam in 1963. In 1984, the Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi was killed, by Sikh extremists. In a wholly of different character was the “assassination” of a leading Nazi and architect of Shoa (the Holocaust), Reinhard Heydrich, by the Czechoslovak parachutists in Prague in 1942. This killing was a military action which gave moral strength to the national resistance against German occupation. This action unfortunately also brought revenge- terrorist killings of innocent Czechoslovak citizens on massive scale. 5. Terrorist attacks as armed acts The events of 11 September 2001 introduced a new phenomenon into the problem of suppression of crimes of international terrorism and the use of force in self-defense. For decades, the acts of international terrorism were the exclusive matter of international penal law and not of jus belli . Targeted killings used by the U.S. was justified by the Bush administration as the “war on terrorism”, even outside any area of hostilities, in the territories of the third states. The U.S. administrations from Bush to Trump claim that their right to self-defense after these terrorist attacks continues, because there is “ continuing imminent threat ” from Al- Qaeda and its affiliates. They describe this threat very broadly as a threat to U.S., its nationals, and its allies. Some international law scholars stated that the U.S. response to 9/11 attacks was to “announce a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy- global war on terrorism” which continues “not just in Afghanistan, but through its targeted killings against suspected members of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia”. 20 There is a certain discrepancy in the interpretation of the use of targeted killings and invocation of the right to self-defense. This question will be discussed specifically in the next chapter. The U.S. administrations generally refused to use terms “assassination” or “extrajudicial executions” for targeted killings, because “wartime law” and “not human rights law” has been applicable in this case. This position has been repeatedly criticized by human rights activists and international law scholars. Some of them argue that terrorists should not be dealt with as war combatants but as criminals . They suggest to address acts of terrorism as soon possible through criminal prosecution with warning that the “unfounded” use of armed force represents the danger of removal of the prohibition of the use of for in international laws. 21 There is no generally accepted definition of terrorism and arriving at one will not be an easy task in the future either. 22 W. Laqueur in his famous book “ Terrorism ” from 1948 writes 20 GRAY CH., The use of force against terrorism: a new war for a new century, supra note 15. For the development of the events see also MURPHY, S. D., Contemporary Practice of the United States relating to International Law, 96 ASIL 2002, N.1, p. 237. 21 See e.g. “…we must be on our guard against any erosion of the prohibition against the use of force in international law.” ULFSTEIN G., Terrorism and the Use of Force, 34 Security Dialogue 2003, N. 2, p. 153. 22 MRÁZEK J., International Law and the Fight against Terrorism, in: Blahož J., Balaš V., Klíma K., Mrázek J., Večeř J., et al., Democracy and Issues of Legal Policy in Fighting Terrorism: a Comparison , Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2009, p. 150.

301