Between Peace and War: The Moral Justification of State-Sanctioned Killing of Another State’s Civilian Officials

Abstract

The subject of this article is not (primarily) state-sanctioned assassination of high officials but of lower officials, such as scientists or engineers working for Iran's nuclear program. The following seem to be the main arguments that might be offered as moral justification of such killing of another state's civilian officials: policing, execution, war, self-defense, defense of the innocent, necessity, fairness, retribution, reasons of state, best option, and mutual consent. From a survey of these arguments, we may conclude that no state-sanctioned killing of civilian officials of another state can be justified under international law as it is or, at least, as it should be—except when, however imprudently, two or more states enter a convention specifically allowing such killings among the parties. Insofar as this conclusion differs from international law today, international law should change.