Washington Institute For Defence & SecurityWashington Institute For Defence & SecurityWashington Institute For Defence & Security
Washington, DC 20001
00120227112455
Analyzing the growing threats of targeted killings due to advanced technologies
Credit: Dmitry Serebryakov/AP

Back in 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who belongs to the US, was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. After researching, it was found that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman was involved in this murder. US intelligence found the MBS approved the murder. The Saudi government refused to accept this claim. After the Jamal murder, the president of the United States, Joe Biden, called MBS a “pariah” and strongly opposed former President Trump because of supporting autocrats. In 2022, during the meeting of Joe Biden and MBS, both of them shared a fist bump in Jeddah. 

This type of handshake grabbed the attention of many people. All of them said this is a sign that Western nations were agreeing to ignore the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia for political reasons. Many critics, such as the former CEO of The Washington Post, Fred Ryan, said that Joe Biden‘s friendly meeting with Salman gave him undeserved approval and made the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi seem less serious. It raises concerns that political alliances should take steps against a nation that violates human rights frequently. 

In this modern age, state-sponsored assassinations are becoming more bold and frequent. All of the reactions usually follow the same pattern. It includes condemnation, possible sanctions, and then little action. One of the reasons is that different agencies have the desire to show their ability to efficiently use artificial intelligence to target enemies. They used drones to attack opponents from a specific distance. Drones make the chances of getting caught less and they can easily harm the enemies. In this way, they can minimise the risks of direct action. 

In the Russia-Ukraine war, Ukraine claimed they were responsible for the murder of Russian General Igor Kirillov. They can do it by using bombs on scooters in Moscow. Israel is also making plans to attack the members of Hezbollah in Lebanon. All of these cases highlight how assassinations are becoming easier and bolder. All of this is due to the development of new technologies.

It is important to take stronger action against these killings. These incidents happened just because of the weak international response in preventing these murders. 

Subsidized by the killings are growing more prevalent, demonstrated by the recent US charges of an Afghan national for supposed involvement in an Iranian plot to murder former President Trump. Russia’s past practice of murdering dissidents, such as Sergei Skripal in 2018 and Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, shows how governments may use lethal force against their rivals with little consequence. Russia maintains there are not any real repercussions and denies any involvement in these attacks. As a hidden tactic, murders are more appealing to states since they carry no consequences. Dr. Trenta claims that states can share political communication without fearing retaliation thanks to the rise in popularity of assassinations. 

Dr. Trenta believes that some assassinations, such as ones that target military officials in current conflicts, may be acceptable regardless of the morality and legality of such offenses are up for dispute. However, there are major legal and ethical problems with the increased use of state-sponsored killings. It can be difficult to distinguish between targeted deaths during times between war and peace. In the words of Dr. Trenta, unless it is done treacherously, it is not unlawful to murder an opponent during a war. 

However, assassinations violate international law, including state sovereignty and humanitarian law, in times of peace. A lot of countries have stretched to the limits regarding what can be legal by claiming targeted murders since 9/11. 

Law academic Mary Ellen O’Connell believes that all murders are illegal, regardless of the offender. She mentions the assassination of former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran as an example. Even if he cooperated in a killing, O’Connell believes Israel had no legal basis for murdering him. She compares it to executing somebody who anticipates safety, like a soldier luring an enemy with lies. O’Connell believes that Haniyeh’s betrayal in her murder breaches international law because she was in Tehran and believed to be protected.

Author

Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up to receive latest news, updates, promotions, and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
No, thanks