SummaryIf state practice is any indication, targeted killing is increasingly becoming regarded as a viable and effective response to the threat posed by terrorist organizations. Its growing role in armed conflict makes it particularly important that international humanitarian law (IHL) prove capable of providing an effective framework within which this practice may be governed. As it is currently conceived, however, IHL has shown itself ill-suited to the particular nature of armed conflicts between states and terrorist organizations on a broad level and, more specifically, to the practice of targeted killing. This article examines the decision of the Israeli supreme Court in Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel as an example of an effort to fit targeted killing within IHL, focusing on its characterization of “terrorists” and its imposition of the “least harmful means” requirement. The author suggests that, while the former exposes the difficulty of reconciling this development in armed conflict with existing rules, the latter demonstrates the benefits of relying on fundamental principles of IHL, in this case that of military necessity. The article concludes by contending that it is these principles, rather than existing rules, that should be viewed as the appropriate mechanism by which to accommodate targeted killing within IHL.
The Characterisation Of Armed Conflict And Targeted Killing Of Suspected Terrorists Under International Humanitarian Law: Reflections On The Future Of Jus In Bello