'Targeted killings' in an age of terror: the legality of the Yemen strike

Abstract

In November 2002, a US Unmanned Aerial Vehicle launched a missile at a car in Yemen suspected to be carrying terrorists. The lethal strike arguably represented a `targeted killing`, a policy that had previously been widely renounced by the international community including the US. However, the incident remained largely unchallenged by other states. This article analyses the legality of the Yemen strike, taking into account alternative legal rationales that could be presented in defence of US action. It characterises and assesses the incident in turn, as a Yemen request for forceful intervention, an engagement in an ongoing armed conflict, an anti-terrorist operation mandated by Security Council Resolution 1373 and an act of anticipatory self-defence. It finds that the Yemen strike in particular, and `targeted killings` in general, can only tenuously be reconciled with the existing international legal framework. In this context, the article questions the uncritical international response to the Yemen incident. It speculates that the tacit acceptance of US action reflects two emerging norms governing the use of force, namely a toleration of military actions that do not threaten the existence of the state and the gradual legitimisation of state action perpetrated against unidentified individuals.