• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.53-81
• /
• 2017

Targeted killing is a modern euphemism for the assassination of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield. Targeted killing using armed drones has raised profound anxieties in legal, policy, and advocacy communities in the United States and abroad, including among UN officials. The bottom line for targeted killing supporters is that targeted killing works as part of a larger counter-terrorism strategy. Targeted killing does what it is supposed to and removes the leader of a group. And despite growing legal, moral, and ethical issues concerning targeted killing, scholars agree that drone strikes and targeted killing operations will stay. The ACLU has sued top CIA and Pentagon decision-makers to seek accountability for the unlawful killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen last year. Also, strikes by drones are associated with serious problems such as collateral damage to ordinary citizens and friendly fire. Targeted killings by drones also involves several issues to be resolved, including suspicions that they may run counter to domestic law prohibiting assassination, the opacity concerning their definitions and military actions, and the impact of whiplash transition. Finally, targeted killing program and the need for transparency. The assembly referring to resolution invites the committee of ministers to undertake a thorough study of the lawfulness of the use of combat drones for targeted killings and if need be develop guidelines for member states on targeted killings with a special reference to those carried out by combat drones. These guidelines should reflect the states duties under international humanitarian and human rights law in particular the standards laid down in the EC on human rights as interpreted by the european court of human rights.