CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 11 (2020) humanitarian law. However, the IS was never recognized as a real state. The Report suggests that there is considerable state practice stretching back to Caroline , which lends support, especially since 2001, to the claim of self-defense of non-state actors in such circumstances. 73 Besides, the Report claims that “ self-defense is a right triggered by an act, rather than the actor ”. Therefore, according to the Report a state may have right to self-defense against non-state actors “ operating extraterritorially and where attacks cannot be attributed to the host State ”. 74 This statement may have serious impact on the understanding of the right of self-defense in the future. It will depend on “ state practice ” and recognition of this practice by the whole international community. The question how self-defense may be carried out against non-state actors do raise considerable challenges. There is a presumption of forcible violation of the territorial sovereignty of the state, where the non-state actors are located (so-called host state). This state may be itself a victim of hostilities. The armed attack according to the Report can be attributed to the non-state actor alone, to the “host state” or to both. The Report stipulates that “ if the armed attack is legally one of the non-state actor alone, the victim State may have a right to use force in self-defense against the armed group, but not against the State ”. It seems the U.S. counterterrorism efforts outside Afghanistan and Iraq are in the U.S. targeting killings policy focused on those individuals who “ are a threat to the United States, where removal would cause a significant- even if only temporary-disruption of the plans and capabilities of Al-Qaeda and associated forces ”. 75 8. Concluding Remarks The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in response to the horrifying terrorist attacks on New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001 led immediately the U.S., NATO countries, and many international law experts to a fundamental reappraisal of the law on self-defense, previously accorded by international law originally only to states. The terrorist attacks were launched against a superpower with serious consequences for understanding and interpretation of the law on the use of force. In most cases outside armed conflicts, targeted killings are illegal and violate the basic human right to live. This study, for the limited scope of this essay, is not dealing with jus in bello . This study on targeted killings admits that a “targeted killing is acceptable in armed conflicts”, provided that targeted killing in broad term is every “shooting”, every “bullet”, “missile”, or “explosion” during the warfare. Otherwise, targeted killing must be very, very exceptional to be legal in situations where there was really no other possibility to prevent a deadly attack on human lives and basic human values. The term “targeted killing” has been used here in a narrow sense as discussed in the second chapter. So “targeted killings” are lawful in the exceptional circumstances of armed conflict. The notion of “targeted killings” so differs meaningfully from the terms “assassination”, “extrajudicial”, or “summary execution”, which are by definition illegal and nevertheless have been often used 73 Caroline case has been often used as “mantra”, as myths for justification of various use of force, the necessity of self-defense, self-help etc. The Carolina case does not represent an armed attack from an American steamer of Caroline. The use of force was not prohibited at that time, self-defense was not the only exception of the use of force etc. 74 Ibid, supra note 66, p. 16. 75 U.S. Department of Justice, Lawfulness of Lethal Operations Directed Against a U.S. Citizen, Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qaeda, available at: https://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/obama-reflects-on- drone-warfare/.

312