A legal hybrid of war and policing grants a global license to kill

Evidence

This would give rise to a curious legal hybrid, somewhere between warfare and policing, that could benefit from the liberalities of both regimes without being obliged to accept the constraints of either. Militarized manhunting would at last have found adequate legal expression in the shape of a global right of lethal policing. The United States would profit, since “self-defense gives the discretionary ability to attack anywhere in the world where a target is located, without having to make claims about a state of armed conflict everywhere and always across the world”21—an elegant enough solution, which, however, Philip Alston ventures to translate as “license to kill.” — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 553

Categorization

• SEED: Angle: the self-defense rationale quietly converts global manhunting into something neither war nor policing, and what that reveals about who gets immunity.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in principled impunity for imperial combatants and the war/peace antinomy. — connects to: Claimed technical precision is used to justify global extension of lethal force.; The proposed hybrid legal regime grants a global right of lethal policing; Some advocates propose a new legal regime of unconstrained lethal self-defense (+10 more)

Related

• The proposed hybrid legal regime grants a global right of lethal policing (similarity 0.95)
• Some advocates propose a new legal regime of unconstrained lethal self-defense (similarity 0.92)
• The combatant-to-militant shift expands the right to kill indefinitely (similarity 0.91)
• Claimed technical precision is used to justify global extension of lethal force. (similarity 0.89)
• Target-centered battlefield logic legally licenses worldwide execution of suspects (similarity 0.89)
• Police preponderance over the military encodes a regime’s claim to global rule (similarity 0.88)
• Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war. (similarity 0.85)
• Geocentric war law is attacked to justify lethal policing beyond borders (similarity 0.85)
• Unilateral drone killing makes the legal right to kill merely formal. (similarity 0.84)
• Accepted zero-risk killing would collapse just war theory (similarity 0.83)
• Soldiers and police have fundamentally different legal rules for lethal force (similarity 0.83)
• Just-cause theorists grant only the just warrior the right to kill (similarity 0.83)
• Militarized manhunting combines warfare and policing into a new state violence (similarity 0.83)
• The drone made warfare absolutely unilateral, killing without risk of being killed (similarity 0.82)
• Drone warfare creates a new configuration that is neither war nor peace (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Militarized manhunting combines warfare and policing into a new state violence #corroborates (0.85) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 164
• Drone-weaponized remote control radicalizes war into one-sided killing from safe zones #exemplifies (0.55)
• Radical protection from death transforms war into one-sided slaughter or hunting #qualifies (0.50)
• Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war. #expands (0.50) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 128
• Right to kill depends on readiness to expose own soldiers #expands (0.40)