Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Targeted KillingsLaw and Morality in an Asymmetrical World$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Claire Finkelstein, Jens David Ohlin, and Andrew Altman

Print publication date: 2012

Print ISBN-13: 9780199646470

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 17 August 2018

IMMINENCE IN JUSTIFIED TARGETED KILLING

IMMINENCE IN JUSTIFIED TARGETED KILLING

Chapter:
(p.253) 9 IMMINENCE IN JUSTIFIED TARGETED KILLING
Source:
Targeted Killings
Author(s):

Russell Christopher

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0010

The targeted killing of terrorists fails to satisfy the imminence requirement of self-defence. But this chapter argues that the imminence requirement itself is problematic and should be abandoned. If this argument is successful, the principal obstacle to justifying targeted killings under the self-defence approach might be circumvented. Demonstrating the invalidity of the imminence requirement lays the foundation for consideration of alternative standards. Perhaps the principal alternative standard is whether defensive force is necessary to prevent the aggression; that is, rather than focusing on the imminence of the aggression, the standard focuses on the necessity of the defensive response to the (imminent or non-imminent) aggression. While a number of commentators have criticized the imminence requirement, these criticisms have not been sufficient to alter the traditional and consensus view of the importance of the imminence requirement. The chapter attempts to advance some new arguments against, and rebut some existing arguments in favour of, the imminence requirement. The principal focus is to show why the imminence requirement is problematic, rather than to advance a preferable standard.

Keywords:   targeted killings, terrorists, imminence requirement, self-defence

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .