THE LEGALITY AND ETHICS OF TARGETED ASSASINATIONS; A CASE STUDY OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT BY GREATNESS EYONSA

INTRODUCTION

Targeted assassinations, also known as targeted killings, are controversial tactic used by states to eliminate perceived threats, often in the context of counterterrorism or military operations. The legality and ethics of targeted assassinations are highly debated, with proponents arguing that they are a necessary means to prevent harm, and opponents claiming that they violate international law and human right. 

However, before we interrogate these arguments, the question that is begging our minds for answers is; is it lawful to kill specific individuals (targeted assassinations) in the Israel-Palestine conflict, considering international laws and regulations? Is it morally right to carry out targeted assassinations in this conflict, considering the principle of right and wrong, and the impact on individuals and society?

This paper will argue that targeted assassinations in the Israel-Palestine conflict are unlawful and unethical, violation international law and human right and we will submit that Israeli’s actions align with the principle of self-defense under international law. 

This paper will also appreciate the arguments of both proponents and opponents with regards to the legality and ethics of targeted assassinations. Conclusively, recourse shall be made to the relevant provisions under international law and international law principles which prohibits targeted assassinations. 

(Keywords; Targeted assassinations, international law, legality, ethics)

THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK

It is important to draw our minds with a pencil to the relevant international law instruments as well as domestic laws that governs targeted assassinations. we shall have recourse to the United Nations Charter, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Human Rights Law (IHRL), Israel’s domestic law as well as Palestine’s domestic law on targeted assassinations. 

United Nations Charter

The UN Charter is an important international law instrument that guides against targeted assassinations and whether or not the act maybe considered legal is heavily dependent on its adherence to the UN Charter. The provisions of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that a State’s political independence or territorial integrity may not be threatened or infringed by force unless necessary for self-defense or with the UN Council’s approval. 

The practical implication of Article 2(4) of the Charter is to prevent the catastrophic impact of full-fledged interstate conflicts. It emphasizes that, with the exception of self-defense, all member state should abstain from engaging or threatening to use force against the political independence and territorial integrity of any State.

In the succeeding paragraphs of this paper, we shall argue that in line with the abovementioned Article, the targeted assassinations in the Israel-Palestine conflict is illegal. 

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Generally, under International Law, hostilities are governed by the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in order to mitigate the impact that may occur on both combatants and civilians. IHL is codified in agreements like the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols I and II (The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols – ICRC, 1949). A classical example is with regards to attacks that could inflict disproportionately more damage or spread terror among the civilian population more than on military targets are forbidden by Additional Protocol I’s Article 51(5)(b). Additionally, Article 57 of the Protocol highlights that in order to minimize casualties during an attack, military means must prioritize civilians and evaluate potential harm. 

International Human Rights Law (IHRL)

By defending basic liberties and rights even in times of armed conflict, international human right law (IHRL) strengthens international humanitarian law (IHL). Article 6 of the ICCPR states that stringent compliance with legal and procedural requirements is necessary to prevent acts that cause arbitrary casualties. Furthermore, by prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, Article 7 of the ICCPR stresses the humane treatment of all people, including detained combatants and suspects targeted by assassinations during conflict. 

Israel’s Domestic Law

Much like other States, Israel relies on international law for its legal justifications with regards to targeted killings. However, following the implementation of targeted killings operations using remote surveillance and targeting technologies, the Israeli legal framework underwent some major transformation to reach a more comprehensive approach. The catalyst for such changes was a ruling by the Supreme Court of the Israel regarding the legality of the targeted killings. In the case of the Public Committee Against Torture V. The Government of Israel, the petitioners claimed that Israel and the Palestinians were not in an international armed conflict, and therefore the actions that were to be taken against suspects of terrorist activities were those allowed by the law enforcement model, that is through the ordinary standards of arrest and a fair trial. 

Additionally in Israel, the use of lethal force by law enforcement agencies is regulated by the Law of Police. In accordance with the Israeli penal code, actions performed by a public official while on duty are considered justified and exempt from punishment if they involve the use of force that aligns with their responsibilities. Similar regulations are outlined in Chapter 7 of the Penal Code, which permits the use of lethal force to prevent killing of oneself or others.

Palestine Domestic Law

Palestine also relies on International Law with regards to targeted killings. However, one domestic law that Palestine’s rely on mostly in this regard is the Palestinian Basic Law (2003), which serves as a constitution and affirms the right to resistance and Self-defense. Article 18 states that “the Palestinian people have the right to resist the occupation and to struggle for their freedom and independence”. This provision derives its inspiration from Article 51 of the UN Charter which contemplates self-defense with respect to hostile attacks. 

ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT; LEGAL AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS

We shall consider both the legal and ethical arguments with regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

Legal Arguments 

Israel have argued that their actions is within the scope of right to self-defense under international law as seen in Article 51 of the UN Charter and it further argues that the targeted assassinations are necessary to prevent imminent attacks. 

It has further been argued that these actions violate international humanitarian law (IHL), which prohibits attacks on civilians and requires distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Also, Israel asserts that targeted assassinations are a last resort, necessary to protect its citizen from terrorist attacks. 

There are several arguments against the legal considerations with regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict. One of them is that; it is in violation of IHL and may constitute willful killings, which ipso facto violates Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Article 51(2) of the Additional Protocol I. 

Ethical Arguments

Here, proponents argue that targeted assassinations prevent harm to civilians by eliminating militants who plan and execute attacks. Also, they argued that targeted assassinations violates the fundamental right to life enshrined in international human rights law. 

Additionally, it is argued that targeted assassinations perpetuate cycles of violence, hindering efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully. 

Having considered the arguments from the both sides of the coin, the question that comes to fore is; is it legal and moral to carryout targeted assassinations having regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict?

It is submitted that it is both legally and morally wrong to carryout targeted assassinations and with regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

The premise for this submission is captured in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as well as Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits threatening and using force on a State with territorial integrity. It is apt to avert our minds to the fact that on the 7th of October, 2023, Hamas launched an unprecedented assault on Israel, with hundreds of gunmen infiltrating communities near the Gaza strip. Flowing from this, it suffices to deduce the fact that the act of Palestine is in Prima facie contravention with the extant provisions of international law. 

On the other hand, it is submitted that, in light of the circumstances, Israeli’s actions is within the exceptions as provided by law which is self-defense. A cursory perusal of the facts that gave rise to the conflict will reveal that Israel never assaulted Palestine and upon been assaulted by Palestine, they had to defend themselves thereby acting in accordance with the principles of self-defense as provided by law. 

Therefore, it is firmly submitted that although Palestine’s action is in contravention with the principles of international law as well as morality, Israeli’s actions falls within the defense of “self-defense”. 

CONCLUSION

The legality and ethics of targeted assassinations in the Israel-Palestine conflict are highly contested. While Israel claims that the right to self-defense avails them, critics argue that these actions violate international law and human right. However, the international law community should continue to grapple with the complexities of targeted assassinations, and should strike a balance between security concerns and the protection of human life and dignity. 

REFERENCES

Israeli Compliance with Legal Guidelines for Targeted Killing (Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 50, issue 2, p.156) Available at; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3481332 . Accessed 10th July, 2024. 

Israel and assassinations; UN calls them illegal, so why is there no accountability? (Middle East Eye, 7 August 2022) Available at; https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-assasinations-illegal-not-held-accountable-why. Accessed 10th July, 2024. 

Rise and Kill First; The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations (book by Ronen Bergman) Available at; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Kill_First. Accessed 10th July, 2024. 

Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel, Case No. HCJ 769/02, 13 December 2006 (Supreme Court of Israel) 

Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) UN Doc 1 UNTS XVI (UN Charter). 

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31 (Geneva Convention I). 

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 85 (Geneva Convention II). 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR).

Basic Law of Palestine (adopted 2003, entered into force 2003) [Palestine]. Available at; https://security-legislation.ps/latest-laws/the-amended-basic-law-of-2003/. Accessed 10th July, 2024. 

Penal Code (Israel) (adopted 1966, entered into force 1966) [Israel]. Available at; https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&clang=_en. Accessed 10th July, 2024.