By Geraldine Coughlan
There has been little international condemnation of reports that Al-Qaeda's leader Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US forces in Pakistan. But there are questions as to whether such an extrajudicial killing is allowed under international law.The US State Department had offered a reward of up to $25 million for "information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction" of Bin Laden - but is that a license to kill?The US legal framework on the war on terror is unclear. While the US government does not condone extrajudicial killings, the US maintains that senior members of Al-Qaeda are "enemy combatants". As the laws of war only cover killings of combatants by combatants - does the term "enemy combatants" in modern warfare mean a blanket privilege to commit violence in the name of counter-terrorism?
International law
Dutch Professor of International Law, Geert-Jan Knoops said that legally the news of the killing of Bin Laden is particularly interesting, as international law does not permit the killing of an opponent. "Under international law, he must be arrested and handed over to the US to stand trial.The US regards itself as being in a state of war against terror and therefore as having the right to eliminate its enemies on the battlefield," said Knoops. "But the laws of war do not permit this sort of action. Naturally, no court in the world will tick off the Americans for this. What's remarkable is that Obama justifies this killing - while he said earlier that he aims to restore law in the US," he added.
Congressional report
A report by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress outlines the lack of legal clarity surrounding the US government’s rules on assassination.President Ronald Reagan issued an executive order in 1981 prohibiting assassination, directly or indirectly – and specifically singled out the "Intelligence Community." Some have interpreted the order to refer to only heads of state, and it’s not clear whether that was the intention.Regardless, three days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, House and Senate passed joint resolutions authorizing the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."The report states that this means an assassination may be permissible - if Reagan’s assassination ban can be considered as more expansive in covering US responses to terrorist attacks on US soil."The breadth of authority might be viewed as sufficient, insofar as US responses to September 11, 2001 are concerned - to encompass actions that might otherwise be prohibited under the assassination ban," the report says.Of course, Bin Laden's killer could still be charged with murder in Pakistan. The US has an extradition treaty with Pakistan - but observers say it is unlikely that Washington would hand Bin Laden's killer over to Islamabad.
