Analysis of the Legality and Effectiveness of U.S. Targeted Killing Operations

Key Chapter Title List

1. Introduction
2. Common Perceptions of Effectiveness and Targeted Killing Operations
3. Effectiveness from a Legal Perspective: Three Dimensions
4. Targeted Killing and Legal Compliance
5. Effectiveness and Legality
6. Effectiveness and Legal Paradigm Construction
7. Concluding Observations

Document Introduction

Since the 21st century, terms such as targeted killing, "kill lists," and drone strikes have become central to U.S. counterterrorism operations. The deliberate use of lethal force against specific security threat targets during peacetime and in conflict scenarios has sparked extensive debate in legal and policy circles. This study focuses on two key issues: the boundaries of legality for U.S. targeted killing operations under the framework of international law, and the practical utility of these operations in achieving counterterrorism and national security objectives. By integrating legal analysis with strategic assessment, it aims to transcend the limitations of traditional studies that treat these aspects separately, constructing a more comprehensive cross-dimensional analytical framework.

The study first outlines the multiple dimensions for assessing the effectiveness of targeted killings, noting that their impact must be judged by combining factors such as short-term and long-term effects, military and political dimensions, and domestic and international reactions, rather than being limited to single metrics like the elimination of terrorist organizations or the deterrence of attacks. It questions the ambiguity in defining "effectiveness," emphasizing that such operations may disrupt terrorist organization operations in the short term at the tactical level, yet trigger backlash at the strategic level, or gain support in the domestic political sphere while encountering resistance in the diplomatic arena.

From the legal analysis dimension, the study systematically explores the normative constraints imposed by International Human Rights Law, the International Law of Self-Defense, and the Law of Armed Conflict on targeted killing operations. It focuses on analyzing the application in practice of the three core principles of the Law of Armed Conflict: distinction, proportionality, and precautions. By comparing the divergences between the U.S. government and the international community, including human rights organizations, regarding the application of legal paradigms, it reveals the interpretative controversies arising from the dual legal justifications of "armed conflict" and "self-defense."

The study also delves into the intrinsic relationship between legality and effectiveness, pointing out that the legitimacy of military actions depends not only on actual legal compliance but also on domestic and international perceptions and acceptance of that compliance. The U.S. government's attempts to enhance the legitimacy of its operations through policy framework optimization (such as the 2013 Presidential Policy Guidance) and the resulting transparency debates and standard-setting contests have become key variables in assessing the sustainability of its actions.

Finally, the study warns of the long-term risks posed by the confusion of legal paradigms, namely that the U.S. reliance on dual legal justifications may blur the boundaries between the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law, affecting the future development and implementation of international law. Overall, through rigorous legal interpretation and empirical analysis, this study provides a multi-perspective reference for understanding the complex impacts of U.S. targeted killing operations, offering significant insights for national security policy formulation and the practice of international law.