The United Nations and “targeted killings”: between geopolitics and legitimacy -

Abstract

This thesis seeks to examine the role of the United Nations (UN) as the preeminent legitimator of international policy. It does so through the exploration of the ‘targeted killings’ policy within the context of the ‘terrorism’ debate of the past decade, and its place within international law and norms. It examines various sources of the UN’s authority and reviews the process through which it gains legitimacy. It also highlights the key struggle within the UN between the influence of geo-politics--as represented largely via the debates within the Security Council (SC)--and its ability to confer legitimacy, in particular via the General Assembly (GA) and the various bodies, committees and individuals such as the Special Rapporteurs, all of which report to it. This thesis uses the cases of the Israeli ‘targeted killings’ in Tunisia (1988) and the US drone wars (2004-mid 2013) in order to illustrate this struggle. The thesis concludes that while the UN as a whole has not legitimized the Israeli policies of ‘targeted killings’ or the US drone wars, as the imperatives of geopolitics would suggest, it has also not specifically declared them illegal or illegitimate following the work of the Special Rapporteur. It also notes that the example of the US drone-wars exemplifies the very need for the UN’s legitimizing power within the context of what Richard Falk refers to as the ‘legitimacy wars’.