Humanitarian military interventions are prohibited under the United Nations Charter, Article 2(4) and (7), and constitute the crime of aggression. In practice, the doctrine would encourage chronic attacks by the strong to pulverize the weak.
Though we should not forget that extrajudicial killing is inherently a violation of human rights, the Israeli approach to targeted killing at least involves some judicial review. The approach pursued by the Obama Administration has none.
"Give me your best. It's the least you can do. It's also the most you can do. What more can I ask for? It's also important for people to judge their own work. Forget about being given gold stars by others. Judge something by your own standards."
As if we didn't have enough wars already, a battle is now reportedly taking place within the Obama administration over whether the U.S. government has the legal authority to kill low-level suspected terrorist supporters where the U.S. now has troops on the ground.
The commitments to "principled engagement" and "living our values" are especially vital to advancing human rights. For years, U.S. leadership on the world stage has suffered because the U.S. seems to hold a double standard.
Three of the best Supreme Court Justices of the 20th century were great, in part, because they brought non-judicial experiences and perspectives to the Court. This metric makes Harold Koh an ideal choice.
Following years of official silence, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh's statements on the legality of drone strikes last week were welcomed by many. But Koh failed to address serious concerns over the U.S.'s use of drones to kill al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.