The Killing of Bin Laden was Private Justice at Work

There are two legal debates on the killing of Bin Laden by the US:

1-    Did the operation, which was done within Pakistani territory, deny its sovereignty and territorial integrity?

2-    Did the operation deny Bin Laden and those with him of their rights; in other words, was the conduct of the operation observing their fundamental rights in the framework of norms and laws?

With respect to the first question, it is the Pakistani government that has to decide and lodge a protest. In traditional discussions of state sovereignty, no state has the right to enter another country, especially with arms.

 The mere entrance of the US onto Pakistani soil, with any intent, is a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Even UN Resolution 1372 asks governments to aid each other in preventing and suppressing terrorism. Of course this requires the consent of the governments in cooperating with each other; in other words, if the US operation is not with the consent of the Pakistani government, the US cannot justify its act.

The issue of sovereignty is prevalent in this case, but the position of the Pakistani government must be observed first. As known, Pakistan has not legally charged the US; it might have had objections in terms of diplomacy and policy, but not in legal terms yet. Pakistan does not blame the US for trespassing, but it disapproves of the fact that it was not informed of the operation. These complaints have no legal implication and Pakistan has to explicitly announce that the US has violated its sovereignty and is responsible for this.

The literature used by the Pakistani government brings us to the conclusion that there was secret cooperation between the US and Pakistan; in other words, Pakistan had been aware of the nature of the operation, but was not informed of the details.

Therefore, we can say that there was consent over the principles of the idea. Otherwise, Pakistan could have objected to the whole operation by appealing to the Security Council or the International Court.

In regards to the second debate we have to say that, now that the US has gained the consent of the Pakistani government (according to the UN Resolution) to enter its territory, wasn’t the operation a violation of human rights?

Even when Resolution 1373 was passed many countries, individuals, and international organizations worried that the war on terrorism could be used against them. In other words, they were concerned that human rights issues could be violated in the heyday of fighting against terrorism. Therefore, since the aim of fighting against terrorism is promoting human rights, it seems that the US has not abided by this rule in its hasty operation in Pakistan. This issue can be categorized as follows:

1-    The accusation against Bin Laden as the leader of the Al-Qaeda, who was responsible for the leadership of terrorist operations, was not proven by any neutral entity, the US itself included. 

2-    Bin Laden was not able to defend himself according to human rights standards.

3-    There was no necessity to kill Bin Laden, or, in other words, there was no military necessity in doing so.

4-    The killing of Bin Laden without any trial is a case of private justice, which belongs to primitive communities where no judicial institution exists and people act based on personal revenge. But if nowadays terrorism is an international issue and the US, along with other countries, are combating terrorism in the framework of Security Council laws, they should abide by all the standards and allow the accused persons to defend themselves based on their rights. However in the case of Bin Laden, it seems that he was killed based on a ruling by the US government without any judicial procedure or fair trial.

At the end of the day it must be said that the international community also has rights, since terrorism is a phenomenon related to the international community. Therefore, Bin Laden had to be brought to a court and his case heard by the international community so that valuable information on the war on terrorism could be gained, while complying with recognized standards as well.