Status: 08/02/2022 7:35 p.m
“Justice has been served” – proclaimed US President Biden after the killing of the al-Qaeda boss. But was that even legal? Experts say the attack violated international law.
Eleven years after Osama bin Laden, the United States also killed his successor. US President Joe Biden confirmed that the US had successfully carried out an airstrike in the Afghan capital Kabul that killed the emir of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, Aiman al-Zawahiri. There were no civilian casualties.
According to the US government in Washington, no American forces were in Kabul to attack the al-Qaeda chief. Al-Sawahiri was killed by a targeted drone attack – almost silently by remote control. It was different for bin Laden in 2011: he was killed in Pakistan during an operation by a US special unit.
Killing Allowed Under International Law?
As was the case after the execution of Osama bin Laden, the question now also arises with regard to al-Zawahiri: is there a legal basis for the actions of the United States? Or in other words: were they allowed to simply kill the terror boss? The USA argues with its “war on terror” and in this context also relies on “targeted killings” as is the case now.
“Targeted killings” only in exceptional cases
However, such “targeted killings” can only be permissible in exceptional cases. The prerequisite for this would be an “armed conflict” – here between the USA and Al Qaeda. In such armed conflicts, international humanitarian law applies, the “law in war” – with the result that those involved lose their protective status as civilians and can become legitimate military targets.
Al Qaeda is not an “armed organization”
Armed conflict is defined as “armed violence between States and prolonged armed violence between government agencies and armed organizations”.
From the point of view of international law experts like Christoph Safferling from the Friederich-Alexander University in Erlangen, there is no armed conflict between the USA and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is neither a state nor an “armed organization” in the sense of international humanitarian law because it lacks certain characteristics. For example, the network does not appear to be strictly hierarchical, has no control over a territory, and is incapable of conducting military operations. That is why international humanitarian law does not apply, so the killing of al-Zawahiri is not justified.
The USA could counter this and argue that al-Zawahiri was continuously and actively involved in the terrorist network’s combat operations, for example by planning new attacks. From the point of view of the United States, the procedure could thus be justified.
Probably no right to self-defense
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations states: “In the event of an armed attack against a Member of the United Nations, nothing in this Charter shall prejudice the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence”.
However, even the right to self-defense guaranteed here should not offer the USA any justification for the targeted killing of the al-Qaeda boss: The attacks on the World Trade Center were almost 21 years ago, so they no longer represent an attack At least nothing is known about planned attacks against the United States after the drone attack. Thus one should not be able to speak of an “armed attack” by Al Qaeda in which the USA acted.
Expert considers killing unlawful
Law professor Safferling considers the actions of the USA to be simply illegal. “If you had acted legally, you should have arrested al-Zawahiri, conducted a public criminal trial before an independent court and punished him if necessary,” he said ARD legal department.