Introduction
For the majority of common people in the West, Operation Geronimo, which resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, was and still is considered as an indisputably right decision of the United States’ policymakers. Nevertheless, some scholars and politicians raised certain concerns regarding the legal grounds of the Obama office’s actions. Although the former president’s authority to initiate Operation Neptune’s Spear was legitimate from the perspective of the domestic legislature, the compliance of such a decision with international laws is highly contested.
Osama bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011, by the U.S. Navy SEALs in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The former leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist group was hiding in a three-story compound close to the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. After the U.S. intelligence could collect sufficient evidence that the habitant of the compound is indeed Osama bin Laden, Operation Geronimo was prepared and executed.
However, the Pakistani government allegedly was not aware of the U.S. government plans and, thus, the mission was completed in secrecy. Additionally, the information concerning the evidence that the world’s most wanted terrorist was still the leader of Al Qaeda is contradictory. Moreover, Abbottabad was a peaceful city during the time of the operation. All these facts make the decision of Obama’s administration ambiguous from the perspective of the international legislature. Therefore, there are three potential questions that are raised regarding the legality of Operation Neptune’s Spear.
Firstly, it is questioned whether Al Qaeda’s former leader’s targeted kill was justifiable outside the zone of the active military actions? Secondly, could bin Laden be considered hors de combat (militaries that cannot perform their war duties) at the time of operation? And, finally, was it legal to conduct an intelligence operation on the territory of another country without prior consent from its authorities? In this regard, the current essay seeks to answer the aforementioned questions and argue that the U.S. government had an authority from the perspective of the international legislature to initiate and execute Operation Geronimo.
Humanitarian Law vs. Human Rights Law
To begin with, it is argued that Operation Neptune’s Spear is regulated by international humanitarian law instead of human rights law as the U.S. was officially in a state of war with Al Qaeda. The former implies that Osama bin Laden may be killed based on arbitrary decisions of SEAL team members without the necessary judgment from the competent court. Contrarily, such an action would be forbidden during peacetime law enforcement according to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1966). The difficulty in determining which laws should regulate the operation is explained by the notion that Abbottabad was a peaceful city located far from the combat activities.
For this reason, it is important to analyze the difference between international and non-international armed conflicts. The first concept means that two or more states are involved in the war with each other. On the contrary, the second term signifies that military hostility happens between non-state organized groups or non-state organized group(s) and nations. If the nation-states occupy the well-known territory, non-state groups’ area of control is usually undefined and may stretch from one country to another.
Therefore, it can be argued that the U.S.’ struggle against Al Qaeda should not only happen in Afghanistan but in all the countries where the former organization has its affiliated groups. As a result, Obama had full authority to order the death of bin Laden regardless of the place of the Al Qaeda leader’s location in line with international humanitarian law.
Hors de Combat Argument
Secondly, it is argued that although Osama bin Laden did not have as much authority over Al Qaeda groups as previously, he still cannot be considered as hors de combat. This is an important issue to clarify, as if the former leader of Al Qaeda were unable to perform his military duties, the U.S. would not have legal rights to use force against him. Indeed, Rao (2016) argues that certain entities can exercise violence over other parties only as a measure of self-defense. The author further maintains that using force to protect one’s territory may be only justifiable if there is an imminent threat. Therefore, Grimberg (2017) asserts that retaliation for previous actions is illegal under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
In this regard, the evidence suggests that bin Laden still was involved in the war against the U.S. For instance, Bergen (2021) states that one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists was constantly exchanging letters with the leaders of different Al Qaeda affiliated groups. For this reason, it is stated that Osama bin Laden could not be considered as hors de combat and, thus, Obama’s administration had full authority to order his death.
The Necessity of Consent from the Government of Pakistan
Last but not least, it is maintained that the U.S. had the right to execute Operation Neptune’s Spear without prior consent from the Pakistani government. Such a notion is based on the argument that the latter authority was unwilling or unable to solve the problems with Al Qaeda on its territory personally. Although the test of ‘unwilling or unable’ does not have legislative status, many governments worldwide already used it in practice to justify their actions at least once.
Moreover, if such a criterion for the legality of foreign intervention is not accepted, it can be asserted that many countries around the globe would lack the ability to defend themselves against terrorist groups efficiently. The latter, however, contradicts Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, and, thus, it can be concluded that the ‘unwilling or unable’ test may be used as a legal instrument to justify foreign intervention.
In Osama bin Laden’s case, the U.S. decision-makers recurrently mentioned their lack of trust towards Pakistani due to previous evidence that the country cooperated with terrorists. For instance, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta once said that “…the Pakistanis would usually tip off the people we were going after, and they were gone” (Taintor, 2014, para, 2). Therefore, it is contended that the government of Pakistan was either unwilling or unable to fight Al Qaeda on its territory effectively. Thus, Barack Obama had a legal right to initiate Operation Geronimo.
Conclusion
Overall, the current essay discussed why Obama was legally authorized to order the execution of Operation Neptune’s Spear. Firstly, it was argued that the SEAL team had a right to kill Osama bin Laden based on the arbitrary decision as their actions were regulated by international humanitarian law, not human rights law. Secondly, it was proved that the leader of Al Qaeda should not be considered as hors de combat as he actively interacted with other terrorist decision-makers and planning the military actions.
Finally, it was stated that the U.S. had the full legal right to conduct combat operations in the territory of Pakistan as the latter’s government was unable or unwilling to deal with terrorists. In summary, it can be maintained that Operation Geronimo was not only a right decision from the perspective of popular sentiments but also a legally authorized response to terrorist threats under international law.
References
Bergen, P. (2021). The last days of Osama bin Laden. The Wall Street Journal. Web.
Grimberg, A. C. (2017). Theoretical and practical considerations on self-defense in international law. Challenges of the Knowledge Society, 451-455.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1966). International covenant on civil and political rights. Web.
Rao, P. S. (2016). Non-state actors and self-defense: A relook at the UN Charter Article 51. Indian Journal of International Law, 56(2), 127-171.
Taintor, D. (2014). Panetta explains why US didn’t alert Pakistan of bin Laden raid. MSNBC. Web.