Police preponderance over the military encodes a regime’s claim to global rule

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The geocentric interpretation of the laws of warfare must be thrown overboard, they obediently insist, because to extend it would in effect “create sanctuaries for terrorist organizations in any state … in which law enforcement is known to be ineffective.” But that argument, lurking beneath the semantic debate, also reveals what is at stake politically: it aims to justify the use of lethal policing powers regardless of borders. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 248 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The proposed hybrid legal regime grants a global right of lethal policing; A legal hybrid of war and policing grants a global license to kill — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 553; Geocentric war law is attacked to justify lethal policing beyond borders — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 248 (+1 more)

Related

• The proposed hybrid legal regime grants a global right of lethal policing (similarity 0.91)
• Claimed technical precision is used to justify global extension of lethal force. (similarity 0.89)
• Geocentric war law is attacked to justify lethal policing beyond borders (similarity 0.89)
• A legal hybrid of war and policing grants a global license to kill (similarity 0.88)
• Some advocates propose a new legal regime of unconstrained lethal self-defense (similarity 0.85)
• Soldiers and police have fundamentally different legal rules for lethal force (similarity 0.85)
• The combatant-to-militant shift expands the right to kill indefinitely (similarity 0.84)
• Target-centered battlefield logic legally licenses worldwide execution of suspects (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• A legal hybrid of war and policing grants a global license to kill #corroborates (0.82) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 553
• The proposed hybrid legal regime grants a global right of lethal policing #expands (0.80)
• Geocentric war law is attacked to justify lethal policing beyond borders #complicates (0.75) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 248
• Claimed technical precision is used to justify global extension of lethal force. #expands (0.72)