CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 11 (2020) that there is probably no definition of terrorism which can cover all its diverse forms that have appeared throughout history. 23 Terrorism has been practiced by states, individuals, and non-state actors. There are different types and forms of terrorism. International terrorism has been generally defined as “ systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in population with the aim to read a particular objective. ” 24 Another definition e.g., stipulates that “ [an] act of terrorism means an activity that involves a violent act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws… ” 25 It is quite clear that none of the known general definitions may cover terrorist attacks of non-state actors directed against the U.S., which were attributed to Afghanistan, represented by Taliban. This “attribution” meant also “ responsibility ” of Afghanistan for these attacks. Terrorist attacks were identified here with military actions. In this way, the term “ terrorism ” has new and more extensive content . Despite these facts the criminal character of terrorism should neither be ignored nor substituted by a military response only. 26 Targeted killings bring forth a number of legal, political, moral, psychological, and other problems. Before the terrorist attacks 9/11, only the U.S. and Israel invoked Article 51 several times to justify the use of force in response to these attacks, particularly on their nationals abroad. Military force was used by Israel in 1968 against Beirut and in 1985 against Tunisia. The U.S. used military force against Libya in 1986, Iraq in 1993, and Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. Both Israel and the U.S. claimed to be acting in response to past attacks and to deter future attacks. 27 In 2001, the U.S. ambassador to Israel stated on Israeli television, in connection with Israeli, the targeted killing of a suspected terrorist: “ The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that. ” 28 In the past, the EU condemned the Israeli targeted killings of Palestinians. In March 2004, the European Council described the Israeli strike against Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as an “ extra-judicial killing ” and expressly declared: “ Not only are extrajudicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law which is 26 It is maybe apposite to remember that the British, the French and some U.S. representatives were initially not in favor of legal process with German war criminals. W. Churchill in 1942 had advocated a policy of summary execution of leading Nazis. On the other hand, R. A. Jackson, former U.S. Attorney General and since 1941 U.S. Supreme Court Justice and U.S. Chief Prosecutor in Nuremberg was very strongly for judicial, not political process. At 1943 Tehran conference J. Stalin allegedly proposed to Churchill to execute 50 000- 100 000 of German staff officers. The plan for extra-judicial punishment was abandoned in 1944. See TAYLOR T., The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, 1992, CROSSLAND J., Churchill: Execute Hitler without Trial , The Sunday Times, 1 January 2006, available at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/churchill-execute-hitler- without-trial-7875nptrm3r. It is very difficult to say today what consequences would have such extra-judicial executions not only for international law but on the whole international order and live of international community. 27 ALEXANDROV, S. Self-defense against the Use of Force in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff 1996, p. 128. GRAY, CH. supra note 15, p. 3. 28 The Guardian, 20 January 2012, see supra note 4. 6. Legal analysis of targeted killings policy 6.1 The practice of “targeted killings” before the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 23 LAQUEUR W., Terrorism , London, 1977. 24 The New Encyclopedia Britannica , vol. 11, supra note 17, p. 650. 25 Black’s Law Dictionary , supra note 17, p. 1973.

302