Operation Geronimo by U.S Navy SEALS during which Osama Bin Laden was executed was conducted on May 2, 2011, and has raised questions on the legality and permissibility of targeted executions. The U.S laws justify the killing since he was a leader of an organized armed group that had engaged in combat at a scale and intensity that warrant the applicability of the Law of Armed Conflict LOAC. The attacks on 9/11 forced the U.S to apply the LOAC in relation to Al Qaeda members to ensure the safety of the American population (Gimson, 2020). Considering the scale of the attack, bin Laden was deemed a threat to national security. The U.S issued targeted killing in lieu of the capture operation that killed bin Laden. Therefore, those who killed bin Laden were within the limits of their authority and responsibility. The U.S constitution justifies the legality of operation Geronimo, however the conduct of the military action contravenes the international law.
However, Bin Laden’s killing is not justifiable under International Law since the operation was targeted and there was no active conflict between the U.S and Al Qaeda. In the context of international law, LOAC can only be applied in a situation of large-scale safe defense or immediate threat to soldiers or civilians (Hovell & Hughes, 2022). Since the operation, Geronimo was planned and executed at a time when bin Laden or Al Qaeda didn’t pose any immediate or self-defense threat; the operation was unlawful under international law.
Additionally, the U.S conducted a cross-border operation in Pakistan without notifying the Pakistan government. Article 2(4) of the U.N charter prohibits “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” (United Nations, n.d). However, it would have been a legitimate operation if the U.S was acting for self-defense provisioned in Article 51 or the Charter. The U.S used force against the integrity of Pakistan without legitimate threat. To conclude although operation Geronimo is legitimate according to the U.S laws, it is not tenable to the UN international law.
References
Gimson, R. (2020). The mutable defendant: from penitent to rights-bearing and beyond. Legal Studies, 40(1), 113-130.
Hovell, D., & Hughes, M. (2022). Self-Defence and its Dangerous Variants: Afghanistan and International Law. LSE Public Policy Review, 2(3).
United Nations. (n.d). United Nations charter (full text). United Nations.