Operation Geronimo was conducted by the US Navy SEAL Team Six with the support of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives. It was executed on May 1, 2011, in Pakistan and led to the killing of the leader of Al-QAeda, Osama bin Laden (Wallace, 2012). Many people still argue about the legitimacy of such actions and the right of President Obama to authorize the order. However, the operation was lawful according to international humanitarian law, hors de combat characteristics, as well as due to the unwillingness of the Pakistani government to deal with terrorists on their territory.
First of all, President Obama had full authority to order the killing of bin Laden as a leader of Al-Qaeda, according to international humanitarian law. Bin Laden was killed in the city of Abbottabad, which was far from any military activities. However, the USA was officially in a state of war with the organization (Wallace, 2012). The USA and Al-Qaeda had a non-international armed conflict with each other. Therefore, the location of the parties of the conflict is not explicitly identified, contrary to international conflicts. This means that the USA had full authority to kill members of Al-Qaeda regardless of their location. Members of the SEAL team had full authority to execute the killing of bin Laden based on their arbitrary decisions.
Secondly, bin Laden could not be considered an hors de combat as he was actively involved in Al-Qaeda activities. Advocates of the illegitimacy of the operation claim that bin Laden had no authority over the organization (Rao, 2016). Therefore, he could not be considered an imminent threat and killed in self-defense. However, Bergen (2021) notes that bin Laden was still an active member of Al-Qaeda and was exchanging letters with leaders of various affiliate groups of the organization. Bin Laden could not have executed the previous level of authority, but he was still involved in the war against the nation. This fact makes him hors de combat as he still posed a threat to the security of the USA.
Finally, the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling to solve the problem of Al-Qaeda in their country, which gave the USA the full authority to execute the mission. Although there are no legal means to test the inability of the government to deal with the issues, the argument is widely used to justify military actions (Hovell & Hughes, 2022). Additionally, many countries have no ability to protect themselves from threats due to a lack of resources, which contradicts Article 51 of the UN (Hovell & Hughes, 2022). Therefore, the USA had the right to execute the operation without formal consent from the Pakistani government. They could not, or were unwilling to, deal with terrorists on their territory effectively, which gave the USA full authority to defend themselves in Pakistan.
Based on the arguments provided, it can be concluded that President Obama had full authority to order the killing of bin Laden. This assumption is supported by the premises of international humanitarian law, as the US was in an official war with Al-Qaeda. Additionally, bin Laden could not be considered hors de combat due to his active involvement in the organization’s activities. Finally, the Pakistani government could not deal with the problem on their territory, which violates Article 51 of the UN, as every nation has a right to defend its security.
References
Bergen, P. (2021). The last days of Osama bin Laden. The Wall Street Journal. Web.
Hovell, D., & Hughes, M. (2022). Self-defence and its dangerous variants: Afghanistan and International Law. LSE Public Policy Review, 2(3), Web.
Rao, P. S. (2016). Non-state actors and self-defense: A relook at the UN Charter Article 51. Indian Journal of International Law, 56(2), 127-171. Web.
Wallace, D. A. (2012). Operation Neptune’s Spear: The lawful killing of Osama Bin Laden. Israel Law Review, 45(2), 367-377. Web.