Extremism and terrorism in any form of its manifestations have become one of the most dangerous problems humanity has entered the twenty-first century. Terrorism poses a real threat to the country’s national security: kidnapping, hostage-taking, cases of aircraft hijacking, bomb explosions, acts of violence in ethnic and religious conflicts, direct threats to their realization. Operation Neptune’s Spear ended with eliminating Osama bin Laden, leader of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. The Navy SEAL raid on the mansion in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad is generally considered a model operation, but some aspects of it still raise questions to this day. The violent death of Osama bin Laden remains the subject of much debate in the United States. Every day, more details emerge about Operation Neptune’s Spear, which killed the ringleader of al-Qaeda; officials explain why he was dead and not captured alive. Some members of Congress question the legality of the American special forces. However, what happened was legal because it complied with U.S. law, international law and is considered a legitimate act of self-defense.
Creating order in social relations, giving them a specific direction becomes possible due to the impact on the life of society and social processes of the system of legislation. Systematicity and hierarchy are the most critical conditions for evaluating the regulatory effect of normative legal acts. Assassination is not prohibited in Executive Order 12333: it was a military action in the current armed conflict of the U.S. with al-Qaeda, and killing specific leaders of enemy forces is not prohibited (Bowcott, 2011). The Obama administration justified the use of power based on this resolution as well as on international law. Legislation is most appropriate for the expression of law today. It is borne out because a unified system of statutes is now used as the primary source of direction in most developed nations. Operation Neptune does not contradict the legislation of the country, which confirms the fact of its legality and legitimacy.
The international approval of the liquidation of “terrorist number one” Osama bin Laden by U.S. special forces highlights the contradiction between the norms of international law and the state laws of the leading countries. It is necessary to delve deeper into the content to get to the bottom of this issue. Customary international humanitarian law streamlines most of the rules applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts. Even parties to the conflict who have not signed international agreements are obliged to follow it. The international law of armed conflict allows a foreign government to conduct a military operation on the territory of another country if that country itself is unable and unwilling to deal with the problem (Green, 2018). Thus, the application of humanitarian law does not depend on applying formal legal procedures for the declaration of war or recognizing a state of war by any of the conditions involved. It relies on objective criteria that avoid political discussions regarding the qualification of the conflict. Accordingly, Operation Neptune’s Spear does not contradict international law and is legitimate.
Armed conflict is both a precedent and a legal issue. Since 1945, the UN Charter has prohibited recourse to force between States, except in self-defense of an attack (Gardner, 2019). It is protection, which is permissible in response to an armed attack committed by a State. Self-defense as a circumstance precluding the wrongfulness of an act is also a general principle of law. John Bellinger stated that the executive branch argues that what occurred was permissible as a lawful act precisely in national self-preservation, given that bin Laden was planning additional attacks (Bowcott, 2011). For collective self-defense to be considered legitimate, it must first meet all the criteria used to determine the legitimacy of individual protection, namely, the presence of an armed attack, necessity, and proportionality. Operation Neptune’s Spear meets these requirements, which confirms the fact of its legality and legitimacy.
An important place among measures to prevent terrorism belongs to civilian control of military-political activity. Today, the non-use of force or threat of power is one of the basic principles of international law, legally enshrined in the UN Charter and other international legal acts and documents. That is about international security law, a branch of international law with its principles and norms. As for the death of bin Laden, it is a significant event in history. It is essential not so much for Arabs and Muslims as for the U.S. and its Western allies. The al-Qaeda leader’s almost metaphysical subtlety, which gave him the ability to defy the West and openly mock NATO and the “crusaders,” discredited Western governments in the eyes of their population. It undermined faith in the strength of democratic institutions, which were suddenly powerless in the face of medieval ideology and organization. At the same time, to subjectively assess the legitimacy of this operation, it is necessary to emphasize the legal aspect. Since what occurred is consistent with U.S. authority, international law and is seen as a legitimate act of self-defense, it is lawful and fair.
References
Bowcott, O. (2011). Osama bin Laden: US Responds to Questions about Killing’s Legality’. The Guardian, 3.
Gardner, R. Ν. (2019). Commentary on the law of self-defense (pp. 49-53). London, England: Routledge.
Green, L. C. (2018). The contemporary law of armed conflict. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.