Targeted Killing and the Criminal Law

  • Alec WalenEmail author


The moral justification for targeted killing turns on it being justified as an act of self-defense. That justification can be assessed by addressing five questions: (1) Is the targeted person a threat who lacks the right to threaten? (2) Has the targeted person forfeited some of her claim not to be killed? (3) Even if the answer to the first two questions is positive, is targeted killing a necessary and proportionate response? (4) Is the evidence in favor of targeted killing high enough to meet the relevant standard of proof (SOP)? (5) And insofar as a person is selected for targeting from a larger group of possible targets, is the selection justifiable? The legal justifiability of targeted killing should aim to track, as much as problems of administrability and limiting unwanted effects allow, the answers to those moral questions.


  1. Public Committee against Torture in Israel v Israel, HCJ 769/02, (2005) IsrSC.Google Scholar
  2. Afkhami, Artin. 2012. Tehran abuzz as book says Israel killed 5 scientists. New York Times, July 11.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, Andrew. 2017. Targeting al Qaeda: Law and morality in the US “war on terror”. In The ethics of war, ed. Saba Bazargan-Forward and Samuel C. Rickless, 141–163. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, Jo, and Scott Shane. 2012. Secret “kill list” proves a test of Obama’s principles and will. New York Times, May 29.Google Scholar
  5. Broome, John. 1984. Uncertainty and fairness. Economic Journal 94: 624–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christopher, Russell. 2012. Imminence in justified targeted killing. In Targeted killing: Law and morality in an asymmetrical world, ed. Claire Finkelstein, Jens David Ohlin, and Andrew Altman, 253–284. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dinstein, Yoram. 2005. War, aggression and self-defense. 4th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler. 2004. Defending imminence: From battered women to Iraq. Arizona Law Review 46: 213–262.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2012. Culpable aggression: The basis for moral liability to defensive killing. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 9: 669–697.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2016. Forfeiture and self-defense. In The ethics of self-defense, ed. Christian Coons and Michael Webber, 233–253. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2019. Deontological distinction in war. Ethics 129: 603–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frowe, Helen. 2014. Defensive killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haque, Adil. 2017. Law and morality at war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurka, Thomas. 2005. Proportionality in the morality of war. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33: 34–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. International Committee of the Red Cross. Customary international humanitarian law. Accessed 7 Jan 2019.
  16. Kadish, Sanford. 1976. Respect for life and regard for rights in the criminal law. California Law Review 64: 871–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaplan, John. 1968. Decision theory and the factfinding process. Stanford Law Review 20: 1065–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lazar, Seth. 2012. Necessity in self-defense and war. Philosophy and Public Affairs 40: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2015. Sparing civilians. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lippke, Richard. 2010. Punishing the guilty, not punishing the innocent. Journal of Moral Philosophy 7: 462–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, Craig. 2012. Going medieval: Targeted killing, self-defense and the jus ad bellum regime. In Targeted killings: Law and morality in an asymmetrical world, ed. Claire Finkelstein, Jens David Ohlin, and Andrew Altman, 223–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McMahan, Jeff. 2009. Killing in war. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2014. Self-defense against justified threateners. In How we fight: Ethics in war, ed. Helen Frowe and Gerald Lang, 104–137. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melzer, Nils. 2009. Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. ICRC. Accessed 7 Jan 2019.
  25. Milliken, Mary, and Phil Stewart. 2019. U.S. says suspected USS Cole bombing planner killed in Yemen strike. Reuters. January 6.Google Scholar
  26. Otsuka, Michael. 1994. Killing the innocent in self-defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs 23: 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Øverland, Gerhard. 2014. Moral obstacles: An alternative to the doctrine of double effect. Ethics 124: 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson, Paul H. 1984. Criminal law defenses. Vol. 2. St. Paul: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Robinson, Paul H., Matthew Kussmaul, Camber Stoddard, Ilya Rudyak, and Andreas Kuersten. 2015. The American criminal code: General defenses. University of Pennsylvania Legal Scholarship Repository. Accessed 8 June 2018.
  30. Rodin, David. 2002. War & self-defense. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Underwood, Barbara. 1977. The thumb on the scales of justice: Burdens of persuasion in criminal cases. Yale Law Journal 86: 1299–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waldron, Jeremy. Unpublished. Named and targeted. Public Law Research Paper No. 18-50, NYU School of Law. Available at Accessed 2 Jan 2019.
  33. Walen, Alec. 1997. Consensual sex without assuming the risk of carrying an unwanted fetus; another foundation for the right to an abortion. Brooklyn Law Review 63: 1051–1140.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2015. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt: A balanced retributive account. Louisiana Law Review 76: 355–446.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2016. Retributive justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 27 Feb 2019.
  36. ———. 2019. The mechanics of claims and permissible killing in war. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wellman, Christopher, 2012, “The Rights Forfeiture Theory of Punishment.” Ethics 122: 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. White, House. 2013. Fact sheet: U.S. policy standards and procedures for the use of force in counterterrorism operations outside the United States and areas of active hostilities. White House. Accessed 7 June 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations