Ethics and Morality of Targeted Killing in Foreign Policy

Introduction

Targeted killing has become an essential tool in the conduct of foreign policy, especially in the context of the Middle East given the substantial number of deaths resulting from terrorist attacks. The common practice of targeted killing within the framework of asymmetrical confrontations with terrorist threats has generated intense debate regarding the morality and ethics of the practice. Aside from questions about its legitimacy under international law, one of the most significant issues surrounding targeted killing concerns whether such a practice can be considered morally and ethically justifiable in political life.

From the perspective of state politics, targeted killing may represent a moral and ethical approach to dealing with terrorist groups. However, international law provides only a limited framework for such legitimacy. More precisely, the state is responsible for the safety and protection of its citizens as a prerequisite of sovereignty and may therefore engage in whatever course of action it deems appropriate. At the same time, the state must respect the provisions of international law, which in turn defines the rights of both non-combatants and combatant personnel.

Given the volatile nature of the international scene, the terrorist threat is one of the most difficult challenges of the twenty-first century, and there are limited capabilities available to prevent terrorist groups from acting against the democratic principles of most nations. It can therefore be concluded that, despite the precepts of international law and with due regard to the potential for abuse inherent in the notion of targeted killing, such actions can make the difference between averting another attack on the scale of 9/11 and are therefore ethically justifiable and morally supportable.

Targeted killing is an issue that engages multiple dimensions of political conduct. It is not merely a means through which realpolitik is practiced but also a matter of political morality and ethical conduct. The forces engaged in modern types of war are equal neither in size nor in intensity; their political goals and values do not reflect the same norms, and in this asymmetrical conflict states make use of all available means to ensure the security of their populations. Given that the state is seen as the legitimate representative of the individual, questions about the morality of state actions are entirely warranted. Theories have accordingly been developed to analyze the ethics and morality of targeted killings.

The research question has two dimensions. The first is that politics has not always been conducted in a twenty-first-century manner. Since the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when realpolitik was formally established as the guiding principle of statecraft, state conduct has focused more on power relations and state interest than on the ethics and morality of its actions. Under realpolitik, the state was conceived as a rational actor on the international scene, and realpolitik ethics did not include the kind of ethical discussions that are taking place today. At the same time, terrorism poses a challenge for the national state, and the international community has yet to provide a viable solution for managing that threat.

The second dimension of the research question focuses on the means by which the international community can reconcile the responses envisaged by states with the ethical and moral challenges that actions such as targeted killings entail.

Review of Literature

There are two important aspects to consider. The first is the issue of the legitimacy of targeted killing under international law; the second concerns the ethics and morality of targeted killing as a tool of foreign policy. One of the most useful sources in this regard is Thomas Hunter's Targeted Killing, which offers a comprehensive analysis of the entire concept. Hunter defines this type of killing as distinct from assassination during wartime; he notes that it carries significant political risk with severe international implications, that its consequences can be both positive and negative, and that it typically exposes civilians to unintentional harm. To quote Hunter, a targeted killing is "an intentional killing of an individual or individuals known or believed to represent a present and/or future threat to the safety and security of a state" (Hunter, 2009, p. 2).

Nils Melzer, in his work Targeted Killing in International Law, argues that state-sponsored or state-directed killing is, clearly, contrary to international law, as it does not provide sufficient legal grounding to support it. Melzer does concede, however, that there are certain cases in military warfare where, at a defined level of authorization, such killings could be accepted. One question that Melzer does not fully resolve is what constitutes a legitimate military target, since the definition can vary considerably depending on which side or country is providing it. In the case of Osama bin Laden, he appears to have been considered a legitimate target, despite a number of contradictions surrounding that assessment.

Regarding the second aspect — the actual ethical value and morality of the practice — Kasher and Yadlin view targeted killings within the broader context of a new theory intended to explain the conduct of the new type of war waged against terrorists. This theory takes into account the morality and ethics that must underpin the decisions made by state decision-making bodies. These theories are developed on the basis of experiences drawn from the Palestinian conflict over the past six decades of Middle Eastern history.

Ariel Colonomos argues that the great powers of the world today are bound both by a sense of accountability to their nationals and by the need and desire to ensure that their actions are seen as legitimate from a moral and ethical perspective (2006). This is largely because the world requires the formal legitimization of state actions, and, as a result of the ongoing globalization of world politics, states operate within a broadly agreed-upon environment of legitimacy and ethical values — values that are defining characteristics of a democratic state.

Maja Zehfuss connects the issue of targeted killing to the protection of non-combatants (2010). Targeted killing can be understood as a means through which the killing of non-combatants is reduced in wartime, particularly because it shortens conflict by targeting the leader of a group rather than destroying the group as a whole. Such an approach offers the benefit of reducing civilian casualties and avoiding unnecessary harm to non-combatants.

Hypothesis

Targeted killing is a complex matter. The fight against terrorism requires the use of different means through which the asymmetrical discrepancy between the capabilities of terrorist organizations and those of the state can be addressed. The state is by no means a flexible construction; it is a rigid structure that cannot adapt to any situation without a necessary reaction time. In contrast, terrorist groups are small, agile organisms that benefit from the element of surprise and from mobility across borders and beyond any single political jurisdiction. This contrast is central to the way in which asymmetrical wars are fought and is perhaps one of the most important reasons why the use of targeted killings is crucial to both foreign policy conduct and self-defense. Therefore, targeted killing, as part of a political and strategic approach to asymmetrical warfare, can be regarded as ethical and moral, provided that its justification rests on the common good — specifically, the protection of a state's citizens.

Conclusion

The most dramatic change in warfare since the end of the Second World War, and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, is perhaps the emergence of asymmetrical threats. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, the terrorist threat became unmistakably clear, particularly given its unpredictable nature and its capacity for massive destruction. Governments have taken measures at the foreign policy level to reduce the risks associated with potential terrorist attacks on their populations. One of these measures has been the institutionalization of targeted killing as a means of preemptive action to neutralize potential terrorist threats before they materialize.

Targeted killing involves the identification of groups potentially responsible for acts of terrorism. These acts are not necessarily confirmed but are anticipated on the basis of intelligence. Given the multiplicity of intelligence sources, however, the reliability of any given piece of information is always relative, and intelligence agencies attempt to cover as many scenarios as possible in order to ensure protection against any conceivable threat.

The practice of targeted killing is a proactive means of addressing potential threats. More precisely, in order to prevent terrorist attacks or large-scale assaults on the integrity of a state or its population, preemptive action is taken to ensure that planned terrorist operations cannot be carried out. This has frequently been the situation in the conflicts unfolding in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians. Since the Second Intifada, targeted killing has raised serious questions and generated comprehensive debate regarding the ethical nature of the practice and the thinking that underlies targeted killing policy decisions.