Some advocates propose a new legal regime of unconstrained lethal self-defense

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 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The proposed hybrid legal regime grants a global right of lethal policing; The combatant-to-militant shift expands the right to kill indefinitely; Target-centered battlefield logic legally licenses worldwide execution of suspects (+5 more)

Related

• The proposed hybrid legal regime grants a global right of lethal policing (similarity 0.95)
• A legal hybrid of war and policing grants a global license to kill (similarity 0.92)
• The combatant-to-militant shift expands the right to kill indefinitely (similarity 0.92)
• Target-centered battlefield logic legally licenses worldwide execution of suspects (similarity 0.89)
• Claimed technical precision is used to justify global extension of lethal force. (similarity 0.87)
• Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war. (similarity 0.85)
• Accepted zero-risk killing would collapse just war theory (similarity 0.85)
• Police preponderance over the military encodes a regime’s claim to global rule (similarity 0.85)
• 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)
• US dual legal justifications blur the line between armed conflict and self-defense (similarity 0.83)
• Geocentric war law is attacked to justify lethal policing beyond borders (similarity 0.81)
• Outlawed combatants lose all incentive to obey war’s rules (similarity 0.81)
• Unilateral drone killing makes the legal right to kill merely formal. (similarity 0.80)
• Laws of war should grant equal right to fight, not equal arms (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Power loses its ordering function if anyone can resort to violence freely #responds-to (0.85)
• Target-centered battlefield logic legally licenses worldwide execution of suspects #expands (0.65)
• The combatant-to-militant shift expands the right to kill indefinitely #expands (0.60)
• A legal hybrid of war and policing grants a global license to kill #expands (0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 553
• Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war. #complicates (0.55) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 128
• US dual legal justifications blur the line between armed conflict and self-defense #qualifies (0.50) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1044
• Accepted zero-risk killing would collapse just war theory #complicates (0.50)