Abstract

Long rejected as illegitimate and even immoral, the targeted killing of specific foreign adversaries has become a prominent issue in policy debates. While ethical misgivings remain, government officials and commentators alike are more willing than ever to consider whether, in the words of one proponent, "a well-placed rifle shot . . . might preclude the need for massing our forces on the borders of a hostile rogue nation." This article explores the current state of the norm against assassination, discussing the origins and recent decline of the norm and its impact on U.S. policy since the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001. In responding to immediate threats to its security, the United States has neglected the potentially more profound danger posed by the decline in sovereign states' control over the means of violence in the international system. Focusing attention on this phenomenon suggests the need to draw clear distinctions between state and non-state actors in devising a national policy on targeted killings.

pdf

Share