Legal Analysis Of Targeted Killings Under Afghan And Global Law
I. Introduction
Targeted killings refer to the deliberate use of lethal force by a state or organized group against a specific individual, often accused of terrorism or other serious crimes, outside a traditional battlefield or formal trial setting.
Afghanistan’s decades-long conflict and global counterterrorism efforts have made targeted killings a highly contentious legal and ethical issue. This analysis explores the legality of such killings under Afghan law, international humanitarian law (IHL), and international human rights law (IHRL), illustrated by key case examples.
II. Legal Framework
A. Afghan Law
Constitution of Afghanistan (2004) protects the right to life (Article 24).
Criminal Law prohibits extrajudicial killings.
Due Process Guarantees require arrest, trial, and conviction before execution of any punishment.
Military and Security Laws allow use of lethal force in self-defense or during lawful military operations, but not outside legal constraints.
B. International Law
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Applies during armed conflict.
Distinguishes between combatants and civilians.
Allows killing of combatants and individuals directly participating in hostilities.
Prohibits killing of civilians and those hors de combat (out of combat).
International Human Rights Law (IHRL)
Applies at all times, including peacetime.
Protects the right to life with limited exceptions (e.g., lawful death penalty).
Requires strict adherence to due process; extrajudicial killings are prohibited.
UN and ICC Guidelines
Targeted killings must comply with necessity, proportionality, distinction, and precaution principles.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) may investigate unlawful killings as war crimes or crimes against humanity.
III. Detailed Case Examples
1. Case: The Killing of Mullah Dadullah by US Forces (2007)
Background: Dadullah was a senior Taliban military commander targeted by US drone strikes in Afghanistan.
Legal Context: Considered a combatant under IHL; killing was part of armed conflict operations.
Outcome: The US justified the strike as lawful targeting of a legitimate military objective.
Legal Analysis: Under IHL, such killing is lawful if Dadullah was directly participating in hostilities; under Afghan law, cooperation with US forces complicates jurisdiction.
Significance: Illustrates the use of lethal force against high-value targets during armed conflict.
2. Case: Afghan Government Arrest and Killing of Insurgent Leader Noor Mohammad (2012)
Background: Noor Mohammad was captured by Afghan security forces and killed during custody under suspicious circumstances.
Legal Issue: Extrajudicial killing violating Afghan law and international human rights standards.
Outcome: No formal investigation or prosecution ensued.
Legal Analysis: Violation of due process and right to life; considered unlawful targeted killing.
Significance: Demonstrates challenges of accountability within Afghan security forces.
3. Case: US Drone Strike Killing of Baitullah Mehsud (2009) in Pakistan
Background: Mehsud was a leader of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, killed by a CIA drone strike.
Legal Context: Occurred outside Afghanistan on Pakistani territory.
Legal Debate:
IHL applicability questioned since it was outside active hostilities zone.
IHRL demands due process, which was absent.
Significance: Raised international legal questions about sovereignty and extraterritorial targeted killings.
4. Case: Killing of Afghan Civilians in Kunduz Airstrike (2015)
Background: US airstrike on a hospital mistakenly targeted Taliban fighters, killing civilians.
Legal Analysis:
Violated IHL principle of distinction and proportionality.
Investigations criticized for lack of accountability.
Significance: Highlights risks of civilian casualties in targeted killing operations.
5. Case: Taliban’s Targeted Killings of Government Officials and Activists (Multiple cases, 2000s-2020s)
Background: Taliban routinely targeted judges, journalists, and civil society leaders.
Legal Context: Violates Afghan criminal law and international human rights law.
Outcome: Widespread impunity due to Taliban control and conflict.
Legal Analysis: These acts are extrajudicial killings and may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Significance: Illustrates unlawful use of targeted killings as a tool of terror and repression.
6. Case: The ICC Investigation into Alleged Targeted Killings in Afghanistan (2017-Present)
Background: ICC Prosecutor opened an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity, including unlawful killings by US, Taliban, and Afghan forces.
Legal Importance: Represents international effort to hold perpetrators accountable.
Outcome: ICC faces challenges due to lack of cooperation and political interference.
Significance: Sets a legal precedent for scrutiny of targeted killings globally.
IV. Summary of Legal Principles Regarding Targeted Killings
| Principle | Afghan Law | International Law | Case Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to Life | Guaranteed; extrajudicial killings banned | Protected under ICCPR and IHL | Noor Mohammad custody killing |
| Due Process Requirement | Must arrest, charge, try before punishment | Essential under IHRL; less strict in armed conflict under IHL | Taliban targeted assassinations |
| Combatant Immunity | N/A—Afghan law limits combatant status | Combatants may be lawfully targeted | Mullah Dadullah drone strike |
| Distinction & Proportionality | Implicit in Afghan military rules | Core IHL principles | Kunduz hospital airstrike |
| Jurisdictional Limits | Applies within Afghan territory | Applies internationally; extraterritorial killings controversial | Mehsud drone strike (Pakistan) |
V. Conclusion
Targeted killings under Afghan law are only lawful when conducted within strict legal frameworks protecting life and due process; extrajudicial killings are illegal.
Under international law, targeted killings during armed conflict are lawful only if the target is a legitimate combatant and principles of necessity and proportionality are respected.
Outside armed conflict or in peacetime, targeted killings are generally unlawful without judicial process.
Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict complicates legal clarity due to overlapping jurisdictions and competing authorities.
The ICC investigation signals growing international commitment to scrutinizing and potentially prosecuting unlawful targeted killings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments