Assassination and targeted killing: Law enforcement, execution or self-defence?

Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (3):323–335 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX


abstract During the current round of fighting in the Middle East, Israel has provoked considerable controversy as it turned to targeted killings or assassination to battle militants. While assassination has met with disfavour among traditional observers, commentators have, more recently, sought to justify targeted killings with an appeal to both self‐defence and law enforcement. While each paradigm allows the use of lethal force, they are fundamentally incompatible, the former stipulating moral innocence and the latter demanding the presumption of criminal guilt. Putting aside the paradigm of law enforcement which demands due process and forbids extra‐judicial execution, the only possible avenue for justifying named killings lies in self‐defence. While named killings might be defensible on the grounds that there are no other ways to disable combatants when they fight without uniforms, the costs, including the cost of targeted killing emerging as an acceptable convention in its own right, should be sufficient to view the practice with a good deal of caution.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,116

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles


Added to PP

114 (#160,519)

6 months
10 (#308,815)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The ethics of killing in war.Jeff McMahan - 2004 - Ethics 114 (4):693-733.
The ethics of killing in war.Jeff McMahan - 2006 - Philosophia 34 (1):693-733.
Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing.Steven R. David - 2003 - Ethics and International Affairs 17 (1):111-126.
Targeting Terror.Tamar Meisels - 2004 - Social Theory and Practice 30 (3):297-326.

Add more references