ABSTRACT
Despite its widespread use, the criteria for targeted killing permissibility and its actual implementation remain debatable: When can it be applied and when should decision makers opt against authorizing it? When can an order to carry out this targeted killing be given? How many civilian deaths would be considered reasonable or proportional? Why? Can one distinguish a legitimate target from a civilian one? What is the anticipated military advantage of a successful targeting? Is the threat truly imminent? Can the terrorist ringleader be apprehended under reasonable risk and perhaps the targeting can be postponed—or is killing the terrorist without trial the last resort and best viable alternative? Chapter Two addresses these questions and identifies the legal frameworks and circumstances under which targeted killings are considered permissible. The chapter examines in detail the principles of ‘distinction’ and ‘proportionality’ under the laws of armed conflict - two concepts that pose difficult challenges in terms of interpretation and implementation. It is concluded that, while there are vague definitions and ambiguous legal principles, the criteria of distinction and proportionality can shed light on the permissibility of targeted killing cases. It is proposed in this chapter that the extent of civilian casualties caused by the targeted killing is, among a number of factors, the most important one to be considered when assessing compliance with the principle of proportionality.
