The US practice of targeted killings provokes difficult questions concerning the appropriate legal framework and the standards that govern such strikes. This article will argue that, in certain cases, it is necessary to examine the legality of targeted killings under international human rights law (IHRL). An explicit IHRL justification for targeted killings is important and, at present, often ignored by the US. IHRL requires any use of lethal force to be proportionate to the legitimate aim of safeguarding life and a necessary measure with no other reasonable means available to address the threat. It is possible, following a survey of human rights decision-makers, that targeted killings in exceptional circumstances are justifiable under IHRL. It is also incumbent on the US to pass domestic legislation that provides a legal basis for strikes disconnected to September 11, and also the provision of administrative and judicial review in order to provide a post-hoc check on targeted killing decisions.

Hong Kong provides an interesting case study on the increasingly dynamic interaction between international law and domestic public law regimes. In a trilogy of cases, the Hong Kong courts have examined the domestic application of the international law of non-refoulement. These decisions addressed the potential influence of international law on constitutional rights, statutory interpretation, principles of judicial review, as well as the scope of the common law doctrine of incorporation. Having regard to common law dualist principles and Hong Kong constitutional law, this paper critically assesses the judicial use of international law in fashioning a domestic law duty of non-refoulement.

Russia’s veto in the Security Council of a proposed ad hoc tribunal for the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster prompts consideration of alternative mechanisms to bring the offenders to justice. It is arguable that the General Assembly, drawing upon the text of the UN Charter and the Uniting for Peace mechanism, possesses the constitutional powers to establish the tribunal. The unique features of the General Assembly, comprising the international community, also mean that it is able to act in a way that would facilitate the functioning of an ad hoc tribunal, even in the absence of mandatory powers. Although many practical obstacles lie ahead, an ad hoc tribunal established by a broad coalition in the General Assembly may offer the best hope in securing accountability for the MH17 disaster.

Th e doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), which imposes individual criminal responsibility on an accused for their participation in a group's common criminal plan, rose to prominence in the ICTY Appeal Chamber decision, Prosecutor v. Tadić . Since Tadić, there has been a general reluctance by international ad hoc tribunals to review the legal foundation of JCE. However, on 20 May 2010, the ECCC Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) considered the applicability of JCE to the atrocities which occurred in Cambodia during 1975-1979 -the period within the tribunal's temporal jurisdiction. Th e PTC has, unlike any other ad hoc tribunal to date, subjected the reasoning in Tadić to close scrutiny. Th is article will analyse the PTC's decision. In squarely contradicting Tadić on the expanded form of JCE, its fi ndings are to be welcomed. Th e PTC's decision should be upheld on appeal in order to uphold the principle of legality; to safeguard the continued respect, credibility and future legacy of the ECCC trial process.

No abstract