Legal Frontiers: Targeted Killing at the Borders of War

The American embrace of “targeted killing” outside traditional theaters of war has proved highly contentious in recent years. According to detractors, the practice constitutes unlawful political murder or assassination. In contrast, proponents suggest the United States is engaged in a transnational, noninternational armed conflict with Al Qaeda and is thus permitted to kill enemy belligerents. This article demonstrates that arguments in favor of targeted killing are emblematic of the “Global War on Terror” to date, which has sought to limit the application of human rights rules in favor of a war paradigm, to expand the meaning of combatancy, and to erode the geographical borders of armed conflict. These dynamics highlight a critical paradox at the heart of US counterterrorism policy. The more legality is strategically invoked to legitimize security practices, the less able it is to substantively limit state violence and to protect human rights.