I am pleased to announce the publication of Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. The book was co-edited by myself, Claire Finkelstein, and Andrew Altman, and was just published by Oxford University Press. It is available from amazon, Barnes & Noble, or directly from OUP.
The impetus for the book was a desire to bring together scholars from international law, criminal law, legal and moral philosophy, military law, as well as scholars whose work extends across several of these disciplines.
The book is therefore one of the very first to look at TKs from a purely conceptual perspective, instead of simply rehashing the factual controversies involved in Predator drone attacks. At issue in each of the essays is the fundamentally asymmetrical nature of the current TK strategy. In other words, the use of force is deployed by states against non-state actors, thus leading to great uncertainty over whether the war or crime paradigm applies. As I said during a recent panel discussion at ASIL on the topic, the lack of agreement on the lawfulness of TKs is no surprise when there isn’t even agreement on which body of law (or bodies of law, if one allows for co-application of IHL and IHRL) governs the matter.
In short, the issue of TKs implicates almost every contemporary debate in jus ad bellum and jus in bello, whether from a legal or philosophical perspective. It also provides a good lens to continue the philosophical and legal debates about necessity, imminence, and self-defense that first emerged in the context of torture.
Stay tuned for an online symposium about the book at Opinio Juris later this spring.
And in the more immediate future, there will be a book launch event at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on Monday, April 30 at 5:30pm, featuring a keynote address by Rear Admiral John Hutson, emeritus dean at the University of New Hampshire School of Law.
Here is the full table of contents of the volume:
- Claire Finkelstein, Preface
- Andrew Altman, Introduction
- Mark “Max” Maxwell, Rebutting the Civilian Presumption: Playing Whack-A-Mole Without a Mallet?
- Jens David Ohlin, Targeting Co-belligerents
- Daniel Statman, Can Just War Theory Justify Targeted Killing? Three Possible Models
- Jeremy Waldron, Justifying Targeted Killing With a Neutral Principle?
- Jeff McMahan, Targeted Killing: Murder, Combat or Law Enforcement?
- Claire Finkelstein, Targeted Killing as Preemptive Action
- Richard V. Meyer, The Privilege of Belligerency and Formal Declarations of War
- Craig Martin, Going Medieval: Targeted Killing, Self-Defense, and the Jus ad Bellum Regime
- Russell Christopher, Imminence in Justified Targeted Killing
- Phil Montague, Defending Defensive Targeted Killings
- Amos N. Guiora, The Importance of Criteria-Based Reasoning in Targeted Killing Decisions
- Gregory S. McNeal, Are Targeted Killings Unlawful? A Case Study in Empirical Claims without Empirical Evidence
- Kevin H. Govern, Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military Objective?
- Kenneth Anderson, Efficiency in Bello and ad Bellum: Making the Use of Force Too Easy?
- Fernando R. Tesón, Targeted Killing in War and Peace: A Philosophical Analysis
- Michael S. Moore, Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices
- Leo Katz, Targeted Killing and the Strategic Use of Self-Defense