Norms and Security: The Case of International Assassination

The legal and ethical implications of drone warfare

“…92 Second, there is a strong norm against assassinations that is widely respected by states, if only for reasons that they fear others will engage in assassinations against their officials. 93 This norm has proven to be durable despite the growth of informal violence in the system, as even states that conduct assassinations are reluctant to concede that this should become a generalisable right. Even during wartime, when some assassinations would arguably be permitted, states have been reluctant to kill wartime leaders, in part because it would deprive them of someone who could negotiate an end to the war.…”

The Psychology of Modern Conflict

“…In the Second World War, for example, chemical and biological weapons were employed by neither side, despite the incredible carnage, despite a dramatic weakening in pre-war norms that prohibited attacks on non-combatants (Price et al 1996). Another dramatic deviation from the efficiency argument of warfare is the taboo against the assassination of enemy leaders (Thomas 2000).…”

Legal Frontiers: Targeted Killing at the Borders of War

“…for hire or for political reasons" (Eichensehr 2003: 36). While not uncommon in Medieval and Renaissance politics, particularly among the city-states of Italy, and while continually practiced in the domestic sphere of many countries, international assassination of foreign leaders became increasingly reviled with the development of norms governing modern statecraft (Thomas 2000). "I give, then, the name of assassination to a treacherous murder .…”