| Abstract: | The recent judgment by the Israeli Supreme Court on targetedkillings is a landmark decision in many respects. Its main meritlies in trying to give precision to, and therefore make concretelyapplicable by the belligerents, some loose standards of internationalhumanitarian law on the conduct of hostilities. In particular,the judgment is significant because (i) it concluded that theissue of targeted killings did not amount to a non-justiciablequestion, (ii) it suggested a novel and imaginative way of narrowingdown the vague scope of imprecise international rules on methodsof combat, and in addition (iii) it set out a range of measuresthat belligerents must take both before and after armed attacksagainst civilians participating in hostilities, so as to avoiddamage to innocent civilians as far as possible. The measuresauthoritatively suggested in the judgment may serve both toturn some unclear international rules into workable standardsof conduct, and also to open the way to the possible prosecutionof individuals (superiors and subordinates) who do not complywith such standards. |
