Rule of Law

At Just Security Craig Martin lays out the legal requirements and case for the extrajudicial killing of Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Here’s a snippet:

Let us acknowledge up front that Ayman al-Zawahiri was the second-in-command of al-Qaeda at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States – which were heinous crimes, terrorist acts, and amounted to an “armed attack” against the United States under international law.

Nevertheless, his killing some 21 years later requires a legal justification under international law. What is more, the drone strike also constituted a use of force against Afghanistan, with which the United States is no longer engaged in an armed conflict – and so that too requires legal justification. This essay briefly reviews the international law regimes that are implicated (leaving aside entirely the domestic law considerations, such as the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force), and some of the questions regarding the lawfulness of the strike that arise under each regime – and argues that these questions are important.

The TL;DR version is that the legal justification is pretty shaky. One of the problems with being a signatory to international conventions is that it limits your freedom of action. Or brings doubt on your bona fides as being dedicated to the rule of law.

He concludes:

There is a real risk that this action, like the killing of Soleimani, will be seen as the action of a hegemon taken in utter disregard for the laws that it demands that others obey. With the war raging in Ukraine, and claims of Russian war crimes and the crime of aggression much in the news, perceptions of double standards in the operation of IHL and the jus ad bellum regime put the international rule of law at risk. There is much at stake here. This killing must be explained.

It is a fact that more countries trust Russia and/or China than trust the United States. If you’re wondering why that may be, this is it.