Over the last decade, the concept targeted killing has received much attention in debates on the customary interpretation of the right to self-defence, particularly in the context of practices such as US armed drone attacks. In these debates, government silence has often been invoked as acquiescence to thejus ad bellumaspects of targeted killing. Focusing on the question of state silence on targeted killing practices by the Israeli and US governments in recent years, this article investigates over 900 UN Security Council and Human Rights Council debates and argues that there has been no tacit consent to targeted killing. The analysis firstly shows that the majority of states have condemned Israeli targeted killing practices and have raised concerns about armed drone attacks, while falling short of directly protesting against US practices. The article, secondly, applies the customary international law requirements for acquiescence and challenges the idea that silence on US armed drone attacks can be understood as a legal stance towards targeted killing. The article, finally, investigates the political context and engages with alternative interpretations of silence. Contextualizing acts of protest and lack of protest within an asymmetrical political context, the article posits that the invocation of silence as acquiescence in the case of targeted killing is problematic and risks complicity of legal knowledge production with the violence of hegemonic actors.

中文翻译：

---

“有针对性的杀戮”和缺乏默许

在过去十年中，定点清除的概念在关于自卫权习惯解释的辩论中受到了广泛关注，特别是在美国武装无人机袭击等做法的背景下。在这些辩论中，政府的沉默经常被援引为默许诉诸战争权有针对性的杀戮方面。本文围绕近年来以色列和美国政府对定点杀戮行为保持国家沉默的问题，调查了联合国安理会和人权理事会的 900 多场辩论，并认为没有默许定点杀戮行为。分析首先表明，大多数州都谴责了以色列的定点杀戮行为，并对武装无人机袭击表示担忧，而没有直接抗议美国的做法。其次，该文章适用了习惯国际法对默许的要求，并挑战了对美国武装无人机袭击保持沉默可以被理解为对有针对性的杀戮的法律立场的观点。文章最后，调查政治背景并参与对沉默的替代解释。在不对称的政治背景下将抗议行为和缺乏抗议置于语境中，该文章假设在定点杀戮的情况下援引沉默作为默许是有问题的，并且有可能导致法律知识生产与霸权行为者的暴力同谋。