Abstract:
Under the context of Public International Law (PIL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), targeted killings particularly those carried out by drone strikes exist in a morally and legally ambiguous region. The complexity surrounding the morality and legality of such acts is examined in this part. PIL calls into question the legitimacy of extraterritorial targeted killings since it pits the right to self-defense against the notion of state sovereignty. Legal analyses are made more difficult by the ambiguous concept of an "imminent threat" and the arbitrary use of self-defense. The ideas of necessity, distinction, and proportionality are crucial to IHL. Following these guidelines will help to reduce the number of civilian deaths and collateral damage from targeted killings. But there are serious moral conundrums when it comes to telling soldiers from civilians, particularly in asymmetric conflict. The purpose of this study's conclusions is to shed light on the current discussion surrounding the moral and legal parameters that regulate targeted killings, with the ultimate goal of advancing the conversation about improving responsibility and adherence to global legal standards.
Description:
This thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Law in East West University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
