Search

The question of how to contend with terrorism in keeping with our preexisting moral and legal commitments now challenges Europe as well as Israel and the United States: how do we apply Just War Theory and International Law to asymmetrical warfare, specifically to our counter terrorism measures? What can the classic moral argument in Just and Unjust Wars teach us about contemporary targeted killings with drones? I begin with a defense of targeted killing, arguing for the advantages of pin pointed attacks over any alternative measure available for combatting terrorism. Assuming the legitimacy of killing combatants in wartime, I argue, there is nothing wrong, and in fact much that is right, with targeting particular terrorists selected by name, as long as their assassinations can be reasonably expected to reduce terrorist hostilities rather than increase it. Subsequently, I offer some further thoughts and comments on the use of remotely piloted aircrafts to carry out targeted killings, and address the various sources for discomfort with this practice identified by Michael Walzer and others.

As terrorism increasingly penetrates Western democracies, liberals and libertarians are obliged to ask themselves whether contending with it justifies restricting civil liberty and, if so, to what extent. Neither personal security nor individual liberty is ever fully realised--both are a matter of degree--and they are often perceived as being at odds with each other. Hence it has been suggested that we reconsider the existing trade-off between them, or reassess their 'rate of exchange'. While such questions are sometimes raised by left-leaning liberals, they are in fact particularly acute for liberals on the right, or libertarians, who would normally resist any increase in government intervention. Right-wingers who advocate 'hands off' policies on all other occasions now call for an increase in government intervention as regards security measures. Many left-liberals, on the other hand, are reluctant to concede any further power to the state in order to combat terrorism.

This paper considers the role of efficiency arguments in grounding territorial rights from a liberal perspective. The view advanced here is pitted against some recent arguments voiced by Margaret Moore opposing the inclusion of any efficiency criterion in our moral reasoning about territorial entitlement. Though I argue against the view, my own conclusion - favouring the adoption of only a moderated version of such principles - is a relatively mild one. It maintains, on the one hand, that the beneficial use of land is morally relevant to determining its rightful owner, but, on the other hand, it also recognizes the limitations of any such principle of utilization. Ultimately, there are good moral reasons for viewing the way in which a given land has been put to use as a relevant component (though admittedly only one) of our account of territorial entitlement.