| At present,the abuse of targeted killing means has aroused heated discussion in the international community.It is necessary to standardize targeted killing actions and clarify the legality of targeted killing.Theoretically,according to the definition put forward by Israel,the connotation of targeted killing is that the state intentionally uses force to kill people who are not under its control or detention.Combined with Israel’s early practice of targeted killing,targeted killing should be the cross-border killing of terrorists by the state to avoid terrorist attacks.Although targeted killing has extensive extension,it is mainly used in anti-terrorism by force,so we should consider the legitimacy of targeted killing based on this extension.Although the UN Security Council’s resolution authorizing the fight against terrorism can provide support for the anti-terrorism action by force,and it can allow the state to launch targeted clean-up actions against terrorists,the UN Security Council’s authorization model has many drawbacks,which make it difficult to support targeted clean-up actions against the national sovereignty of the host country.Thinking about the practicality of fixed-point clearance from the perspective of "jus ad ballum" and "jus in bello" in traditional war ethics can better judge whether fixed-point clearance has real legitimacy,that is,to think about the legitimacy of taking fixed-point clearance measures,what rules should be followed in the process of taking fixed-point clearance measures,and whether these rules are really followed.Combining traditional war ethics with modern international law rules,we should consider the legitimacy of the exercise of force from the framework of national self-defense right and the legitimacy of the exercise of force from the framework of international humanitarian law.Combined with the common elements in the theory and practice of targeted killing,this paper analyzes the problems and disputes caused by them in the system of national self-defense right and international humanitarian law,and concludes that the theory of targeted killing can have weak legitimacy.However,some scholars think that targeted killing is not legal because there are some problems in practice,such as abusing targeted killing and violating the principle of distinction,which leads to the paradox between theory and practice.The illegality of practice exceeds the weak legitimacy brought by theory,which leads to the fact that targeted killing is no longer legal in the international community.Based on the above conclusions,we can sort out the legal boundary of fixed-point clearance in the system of national self-defense right and international humanitarian law.In order to regulate targeted killing,this paper puts forward four regulatory measures from the perspectives of legislation and supervision,namely,promoting new resolutions on targeted killing,advocating the formulation of new conventions on targeted killing,strengthening the supervision mechanism of the subject of humanitarian law supervision,and perfecting the jurisdiction determination of the International Criminal Court. |
