Is it ethical for governments to use targeted killings as a counterterrorism measure?

Stance

Against (ultimately unethical).

Jurisdiction focus: Mixed (UK/ECHR, US drone cases, international law).

Word budget: 750.

Definitions

• Targeted killings = the pre-planned use of lethal force by the state against identified individuals (usually terrorists), outside conventional battlefields, often via drones or special operations.
• Counterterrorism measure = actions aimed at preventing terrorism and protecting national security, whether domestically or abroad.
• Ethical = justified within frameworks of morality, legality, proportionality, and democratic legitimacy.
• Terrorists = non-state actors engaging in unlawful violence against civilians for political ends.

This framing is loaded to stress proportionality, legality, and morality as the decisive axes.

Assumptions Under Challenge

1. That killing outside conventional war is a feasible and controllable state practice.
2. That terrorism can be effectively countered through targeted killings rather than alternative strategies.
3. That the state is morally entitled to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Point 1 — Rule of Law and Due Process