Thesis Paper for Assassinations in International Relations - Essay Example

A Pragmatic Look at Treacherous Killing and Targeted Killing Explanation of the Thesis Treacherous (illegal) killing and targeted (legal) killing in international relations can be interpreted pragmatically. The pragmatic analysis is possibly persuasive enough to substantiate re-examining the legal explanation; however, the law can be re-examined regardless of efforts to validate preferred policy. Legal theorists depend on the preeminence of the directive of the UN Charter to eliminate threats to peace and order.

The role of the United Nation is, as stated in Article I of the Charter, “to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace” (Wachtel 2005, 677). Legal theorists claim that the most effective means to remove threats to peace and order is to eliminate those prominent people who encourage them, by taking them into custody, but otherwise, by assassinations or targeted killings.

Justification of the Thesis Targeted killings present numerous pragmatic benefits over established processes of far-reaching assault. The most evident and frequently mentioned advantage is saving the lives of combatants who would be exterminated in the course of an attack intended to take a leader into custody, to tear down his regime, or to seize control and authority over his nation. Similarly, all over the 17th and 18th centuries, numerous well-known thinkers struggled with the issue of targeted killings, but almost wholly in the perspective of armed conflict and pragmatic analysis.

Majority agreed that assassination during time of war was acceptable, but slaying them deceitfully was not. Aside from the pragmatic argument that targeted killings will prevent the death of numerous people, the common agreement of these early thinkers was that assassination was allowable, as long as it was not deceitful. The argument against deceitful killing appears to have appeared from a widespread desire to safeguard generals and leaders from disgraceful and capricious attacks. The emergence of the ideals of modern warfare and the appearance of non-state players raised arguments against this pragmatic perspective.

However, these early assumptions effectively placed deceitful killing and targeted killing in their appropriate historical and pragmatic framework.Further Considerations In order to strongly support the thesis, the following issues will be discussed: (1) the principle and effectiveness of ‘targeted killing’ rule; (2) the morality of state-supported or legal assassination; and (3) the distinction between peacetime and wartime assassination. This thesis ultimately argues that analyzing assassination pragmatically will clarify the debate over the moral and practical underpinnings of ‘targeted killings’ and ‘treacherous killings’.

A clear and pragmatic definition of ‘assassination’ will clarify this difference without creating extensive criticism. Very few scholars establish pragmatically the relationship between the legality of assassination and threats to peace and order. This thesis hence argues that even in a situation where in assassination would appear to be most acceptable and warranted, assassination can still be illegal. ReferenceWachtel, H.A. “Targeting Osama Bin Laden: Examining the Legality of Assassination as a Tool of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Duke Law Journal 55.3 (2005): 677+