Over the last decade, there has been an increasing number of so-called 'targeted killing' strikes, most prominently with the use of armed drones. These attacks have been justified through a new interpretation of the right to self-defence which has been – so the argument goes – tacitly consented to by states around the world. Investigating the developing un/lawfulness of ‘targeted killing’ in international law, this thesis focuses on the role of silence in the politics of international law. Analysing not only the power relations of who can/not speak and what is (not) listened to, the thesis also investigates how this listening takes place and what is excluded from the debates on ‘targeted killing’. The thesis investigates the implicit assumptions underlying these forms of listening and expectations of speech, such as the assumption of the novelty of ‘targeted killing’.
|Qualification||Doctor of Philosophy|
|Place of Publication||[Groningen]|
|Publication status||Published - 2018|