A Decade Later and Still on Target: Revisiting the 2006 Israeli Targeted Killing Decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing use by States of extraterritorial targeted killing as a counter-terrorism tool in recent years has given rise to controversial questions concerning its legality under international law. This article first explores the international legal regimes purporting to govern State-sponsored targeted killing and evaluates their ability to effectively regulate it. It then focuses on the use of targeted killing by States against members of non-State terror groups in an international armed conflict. In this regard, the article revisits the 2006 landmark decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in the Targeted Killing case and evaluates its influence and legacy over the past decade. It argues that this decision remains relevant and instructive since it exposes some of the lingering weaknesses of international law in governing the use of targeted killing as a counter-terrorism tool, while at the same time demonstrating how such weaknesses may be overcome within the existing international legal framework. The impact of the decision in this regard is clearly evident in the evolution of Israel’s targeted killing practice over the past decade.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".