Thesis Paper for Assassinations in International Relations Essay - 1

Thesis Paper for Assassinations in International Relations - Essay Example that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace† (Wachtel 2005, 677). Legal theorists claim that the most effective means to remove threats to peace and order is to eliminate those prominent people who encourage them, by taking them into custody, but otherwise, by assassinations or targeted killings. Targeted killings present numerous pragmatic benefits over established processes of far-reaching assault. The most evident and frequently mentioned advantage is saving the lives of combatants who would be exterminated in the course of an attack intended to take a leader into custody, to tear down his regime, or to seize control and authority over his nation. Similarly, all over the 17th and 18th centuries, numerous well-known thinkers struggled with the issue of targeted killings, but almost wholly in the perspective of armed conflict and pragmatic analysis. Majority agreed that assassination during time of war was acceptable, but slaying them deceitfully was not. Aside from the pragmatic argument that targeted killings will prevent the death of numerous people, the common agreement of these early thinkers was that assassination was allowable, as long as it was not deceitful. The argument against deceitful killing appears to have appeared from a widespread desire to safeguard generals and leaders from disgraceful and capricious attacks. The emergence of the ideals of modern warfare and the appearance of non-state players raised arguments against this pragmatic perspective. However, these early assumptions effectively placed deceitful killing and targeted killing in their appropriate historical and pragmatic framework. In order to strongly support the thesis, the following issues will be discussed: (1) the principle and effectiveness of ‘targeted killing’ rule; (2) the morality of state-supported or legal assassination; and (3)