Introduction
Operation Geronimo was one of the most successful raids conducted by the US Special Forces (USSF) on 02 May 2011 in Pakistan. Its name was used to refer to Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous terrorist and Al-Qaeda’s founder and leader, who was targeted to be killed. Approved by Barack Obama, the operation was generally supported by the international community and the United States’ citizens ensuring the president’s reputation and considerable chances for re-election. At the same time, although the raid was thoroughly planned and its rationale was critically discussed by the most experienced and competent administrative lawyers, there are multiple concerns about its lawfulness according to international law. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to provide reasonable arguments to prove the statement that President Barack Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan.
Discussion
In general, international law ambiguously interprets the liability of targeted killing. On the one hand, it cannot be justified without armed conflict between involved parties. At the same time, there was no such conflict between Al-Qaeda and the United States, and bin Laden was not on the battlefield for his killing to be legally justified. In addition, according to the UN Charter’s Article 2(4), “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” (Hovell & Hughes, 2022, p. 4). In other words, targeted killing may be regarded as illegal as it violates a country’s sovereignty unless it provides its consent for foreign forces’ particular activities on its territory. In the case of Pakistan, it did not legitimate the USSF’s operation regardless of official support for international counterterrorism measures (“Ten years after his death, Osama Bin Laden still haunts Pakistan,” 2021). Moreover, the terrorist’s protection by Pakistan and the United States intentional ignorance of its territorial sovereignty led to deteriorated relationships between these countries as both of them regarded each other as non-trustworthy partners.
On the other hand, multiple legal exceptions allow to justify Obama’s decision to organize Operation Geronimo. First of all, targeted killing may be legal if a targeted individual has a history of past atrocities, his death allows him to protect society and avoid a serious threat, and other options instead of killing may be regarded as logistically unreasonable and dangerous (Hovell & Hughes, 2022). In the case of bin Laden, it is senseless to deny his direct involvement in terrorist attacks that caused the death of thousands of American citizens on September 11, 2001. In addition, as a leader of Al-Qaeda, he could organize other terrorist acts as well – thus, his killing was legally justified. In addition, the application of force by the USSF was coordinated by the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. While the necessity was determined by the potential threat of this person for global safety, the principles of proportionality and distinction imply that killing was justified by bin Laden’s resistance to surrender, and no civilians were unreasonably affected.
Moreover, international law presupposes the opportunity of a country to react by targeted killing legally. In particular, the UN Charter’s Article 51 justifies responsive force if it is applied in terms of a nation’s self-defense (Hovell & Hughes, 2022). In 2001, after the attack, Congress, NATO, and the United Nations authorized the US President’s right to the National Command Authority to use force against bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda (Hovell & Hughes, 2022). In this case, the United States executed its legal right to self-defense justified by response to the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Moreover, the use of force did not target either Pakistan or Afghanistan to lead to international conflict.
Conclusion
To conclude, international law does not allow an individual’s targeted killing if an armed conflict between involved parties is absent. Thus, considering the non-existence of such a conflict between the United States, Pakistan, and Al-Qaeda along with the absence of Pakistan’s agreement related to the United States activity in its territory, Operation Geronimo may be seemingly regarded as illegal. However, several factors legally justify it – first of all, bin Laden was one of the most dangerous terrorists, and his life was regarded as a potential threat to global safety. In addition, as the United States had been severely impacted by al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, the country had a legal right to self-defense. In this case, its use of force for targeted killing was justified by international law. Moreover, the operation was conducted according to the principles of necessity, proportionality, and distinction. In other words, it was executed according to the plan that presupposed the killing of a particular person, and civilians were not affected, Thus, it is possible to state that President Barack Obama’s activities were legally justified and he had the authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan.
References
Hovell, D., & Hughes, M. (2022). Self-defence and its dangerous variants: Afghanistan and international law. LSE Public Policy Review, 2(3), 4.
Ten years after his death, Osama Bin Laden still haunts Pakistan.(2021). The Economic Times.