Professional Documents
Culture Documents
mantle with devastating consequences. As such, the killing of political leaders in peacetime, which amounts to
assassination, can fall within its scope. The same can be said about the killing of specific enemy combatants in
armed conflict, which amounts to targeted military strikes, and the intentional slaying of common criminals,
dissidents, or opposition leaders. Actions carried-out by governments within their jurisdictions can also be
interpreted as targeted killings. Although the killing of terrorists abroad may constitute lawful and proportionate
self-defense in response to armed attacks, the use of such measures by states for an unspecified number of reasons
renders shady their very suggestion. David's definition is essentially correct but over-inclusive.
Targeted killing is not a synonym for broader war powers the absence of declared armed conflict is a prereq
Silva 3 (Sebastian Jose Silva, Faculte de Droit de l'Universite de Montreal, Death For Life: A Study of Targeted
Killing by States In International Law, August 2003)
As discussed in the following chapters, targeted killing will refer to lethal action taken by states against wanted
individuals on foreign soil that have, or are preparing, to attack it. They must also not be equated with killings that
occur during armed conflicts between states nor in the context of occupation or civil war. For the purpose of this
study, targeted killing will be defined as the premeditated killing by states of specific individuals on foreign soil
outside the context of armed conflict to prevent acts of international terrorism. This definition covers almost any use
of lethal force by states on foreign soil whose purpose is the prevention of international terrorism, provided that it is
not carried-out in the context of an armed conflict as understood by the Geneva Conventions. Generally, this implies
any military confrontation between "two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not
recognized by one of them,,,26 as well as armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the territory
of one of the High Contracting Parties. The limitation imposed by the proposed definition is that an armed
conflict not already exist against the sanctuary-state or an armed group within it, as it would automatically render
lawful the use of proportionate military force, including targeted killing. The purpose of the absence of armed
conflict qualification is to remove from the analysis any possibility that targeted killings will be automatically
justified as the killing combatants.