|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Adapted from jurist.org article by L. Ali Khan and Edited by Ingrid Burke Friedman | JURIST
September 5, 2025
States are increasingly engaging in extraterritorial (ET) killings—state-led assassinations carried out beyond national borders—despite clear prohibitions under international law. These actions often bypass judicial oversight, undermining fundamental human rights, particularly the right to life and due process.
A Rising Pattern of Killings Beyond Borders
On June 18, 2023, the Canadian government accused India of orchestrating the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and Khalistan activist. The case highlights a broader trend in which governments justify cross-border assassinations on grounds of national security or counterterrorism, despite lacking legal due process.
Extraterritorial killings are a subset of extrajudicial killings—acts in which a state takes a life without court-sanctioned procedures. While extrajudicial killings occur within national borders, ET killings occur abroad, targeting both citizens and foreign nationals.
Legal Context and Violations
Capital punishment, while still legal in several jurisdictions, requires lawful conviction through a fair trial. ET killings, by contrast, circumvent judicial proceedings entirely.
The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving “any person of life… without due process,” a protection that applies broadly, including to non-citizens and alleged enemies. Though the scope of this protection regarding ET killings remains contested, similar legal safeguards exist in most domestic and international frameworks.
Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and regional human rights instruments prohibit arbitrary deprivations of life. Scholars such as William Aceves argue that the ban on extrajudicial and ET killings constitutes jus cogens, a peremptory norm from which no derogation is permitted.
Covert and Overt Killings
Some states openly acknowledge ET killings. In January 2020, the U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, a move defended by then-President Trump as a justified act of counterterrorism. In April 2024, India’s defense minister appeared to confirm the targeted killing of alleged militants across the Pakistani border.
Other incidents remain covert. The 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and the reported killing of Iranian scientists by Israeli agents are prominent examples. Responsibility is often denied, complicating accountability.
Executive Oversight and Legal Gray Areas
Some countries implement an internal executive review before authorizing ET killings, but such processes lack transparency and do not permit the targeted individual to contest the evidence. In Al-Aulaqi v. Obama (2010), a U.S. court declined to block a drone strike targeting American-born cleric Anwar Al-Aulaqi in Yemen, effectively validating closed executive decision-making in place of judicial due process.
While such practices may be politically expedient, they fall short of internationally accepted legal standards.
Sovereignty and International Fallout
The response of the state where the ET killing occurs varies. In some cases, the territorial state may covertly cooperate, as was possibly the case in the 2011 U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In others, such as the Nijjar killing in Canada or the foiled plot against another Sikh leader in the U.S., territorial states have strongly condemned the acts, viewing them as violations of sovereignty and international law.
Sanctions, criminal indictments, and diplomatic rifts often follow such incidents, though enforcement remains inconsistent.
Conclusion
International law firmly prohibits extrajudicial and extraterritorial killings. Yet, state practice often contradicts these norms, particularly when national security is invoked. As covert and overt assassinations increasingly blur the lines between warfare, law enforcement, and targeted repression, the global commitment to the rule of law and human rights faces a significant test.
Adapted from an original commentary by L. Ali Khan, Emeritus Professor of Law at Washburn University School of Law. First published by JURIST on September 5, 2025. Professor Khan is the founder of the Legal Scholar Academy and a frequent contributor to international law scholarship. Contact: [email protected]
