Hubbry Logo
Extrajudicial punishmentExtrajudicial punishmentMain
Open search
Extrajudicial punishment
Community hub
Extrajudicial punishment
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Extrajudicial punishment
Extrajudicial punishment
Extrajudicial punishment
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Extrajudicial punishment is a punishment for an alleged crime or offense which is carried out without legal process or supervision by a court or tribunal through a legal proceeding.

Politically motivated

[edit]

Extrajudicial punishment is often a feature of politically repressive regimes, but even self-proclaimed or internationally recognized democracies have been known to use extrajudicial punishment under certain circumstances.

Although the legal use of capital punishment is generally decreasing around the world, individuals or groups deemed threatening—or even simply "undesirable"—to a government may nevertheless be targeted for punishment by a regime or its representatives. Such actions typically happen quickly, with security forces acting on a covert basis, performed in such a way as to avoid a massive public outcry and/or international criticism that would reflect badly on the state. Sometimes, the killers are agents outside the government. Criminal organizations, such as La Cosa Nostra, have reportedly been employed for such a purpose.

Another possibility is for uniformed security forces to punish a victim, but under circumstances that make it appear as self-defense or suicide. The former can be accomplished by planting recently fired weapons near the body, the latter by fabricating evidence suggesting suicide. In such cases, it can be difficult to prove that the perpetrators acted wrongly. Because of the dangers inherent in armed confrontation, even police or soldiers who might strongly prefer to take an enemy alive may still kill to protect themselves or civilians, and potentially cross the line into extrajudicial murder.

A forced disappearance (or enforced disappearance) occurs when a person is secretly abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organization or by a third party with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the person's fate and whereabouts, with the intent of placing the victim outside the protection of the law.[1]

Extrajudicial punishment may be planned and carried out by a particular branch of a state, without informing other branches, or even without having been ordered to commit such acts. Other branches sometimes tacitly approve of the punishment after the fact. They can also genuinely disagree with it, depending on the circumstances, especially when complex intragovernmental or internal policy struggles also exist within a state's policymaking apparatus.

In times of war, natural disaster, societal collapse, or in the absence of an established system of criminal justice, there may be increased incidences of extrajudicial punishment. In such circumstances, police or military personnel may be unofficially authorised to severely punish individuals involved in looting, rioting and other violent acts, especially if caught in flagrante delicto. This position is sometimes itself corrupted, resulting in the death of merely inconvenient persons, that is, relative innocents who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Around the world

[edit]

Historically

[edit]

Wyatt Earp led a federal posse, in the Earp Vendetta Ride, during the spring of 1882 which was implicated in the murder of four outlaw "Cowboys" they believed had ambushed his brothers Virgil and Morgan Earp, maiming the former and killing the latter.[2]

The NKVD troika and Special Council of the NKVD are examples from the history of the Soviet Union, where extrajudicial punishment "by administrative means" was part of the state policy. Other Soviet Bloc secret police organizations like the East German Stasi, Romanian Securitate have also used it from time to time.

Most Latin American dictatorships have regularly instituted extrajudicial killings of their enemies; for one of the better-known examples, see Operation Condor.[3]

The deaths of the leaders of the leftist urban guerrilla group, the Red Army Faction, Ulrike Meinhof, Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe in West Germany are regarded by some of those in the radical left movements as extrajudicial killings, a theory partly based on the testimony of Irmgard Möller.

During the apartheid years (from 1948 until the early 1990s), South Africa's security forces were also accused of using extrajudicial means to deal with their political opponents.[citation needed][4] After his release, Nelson Mandela would refer to these acts as proof of a Third Force. This was denied vehemently by the administration of F.W. de Klerk. Later the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu would find that both military and police agencies such as the Civil Cooperation Bureau and C10 based at Vlakplaas were guilty of gross human rights violations. This led the International Criminal Court to declare apartheid a crime against humanity.

Present day

[edit]

From 1957 to 2013, a system of administrative detention in China known as "re-education through labor" (láodòng jiàoyǎng 劳动教养, abbreviated láojiào 劳教) is used to detain persons for minor crimes such as petty theft, prostitution, and trafficking illegal drugs for periods of up to four years. Re-education through labor sentences were given by the police, rather than through the judicial system.[citation needed]

In the Netherlands, prosecutors and tax inspectors can procure punishments without due process (Strafbeschikking), a practice that has been increasingly criticised by members of the Dutch Second Chamber, such as Michiel van Nispen. [5]

For many years, the Jamaican Constabulary Force has been noted for its extrajudicial killings.[6][7] With 140 police killings in a population of 3 million, "Jamaica’s police force [is] among the deadliest in the world".[8]

It has been discussed[who?] that the use of psychiatric treatments to reduce unwanted behaviors can be seen as extrajudicial punishments, due to many side-effects associated to these treatments.[9]

The US has been known to employ extrajudicial tactics including extraordinary rendition. Some critics use the term "torture by proxy" to describe situations in which the CIA[10][11][12][13] and other US agencies have employed rendition techniques to transfer suspected terrorists to countries known to utilize torture. While denied by the US, where it is a crime to transfer anyone to any location for the purpose of torture, critics claim that torture has been employed with the knowledge or acquiescence of US agencies. Condoleezza Rice (then the United States Secretary of State) stated:[14]

...the United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.

The CIA has been accused of operating secret detention and interrogation centres known as black sites. These are allegedly located in countries other than the US, thus evading US laws as they are outside US jurisdiction[citation needed]

On September 4, 2025, the U.S. Navy killed 11 people in a boat in international waters. President Donald Trump claimed that they were smuggling drugs.[15]

Human rights groups

[edit]

Many human rights organisations like Amnesty International campaign against extrajudicial punishment.[16][17][18][19][20]

See also

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Miethe, Terance D.; Lu, Hong (2005). Punishment: A Comparative Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-60516-8.
  • Adam Possamai; James T Richardson; Bryan S Turner (4 December 2014). The Sociology of Shari'a: Case Studies from around the World. Springer. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-3-319-09605-6.
  • Collective Punishment. Human Rights Watch. GGKEY:9K4181KYTQU.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Extrajudicial punishment

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Extrajudicial punishment denotes the administration of sanctions, such as executions, beatings, or other deprivations, by governmental authorities, civilians, or non-state groups without recourse to established judicial processes or legal . This practice inherently circumvents formal , relying instead on arbitrary determinations of guilt and penalty, often rationalized by expediency in environments where legal institutions are perceived as inadequate or compromised. Manifestations range from state-sanctioned summary killings—defined legally as deliberate deprivations of life absent any judicial framework—to informal retributive acts by communities or , both of which prioritize immediate response over evidentiary standards or appeals. Historically and contemporarily, such punishments have proliferated in contexts of political instability, , or , where formal courts face overload, corruption, or threats, leading actors to impose penalties unilaterally to maintain order or deter perceived threats. Controversies center on their erosion of rule-of-law principles, potential for abuse against innocents, and empirical challenges in verifying efficacy against crime rates, as data often conflates correlation with causation amid underreporting and . Despite international prohibitions under instruments, persistence in regions like parts of and underscores tensions between institutional fragility and demands for rapid accountability.

Core Definition and Scope

Extrajudicial punishment constitutes the deliberate infliction of penalties, sanctions, or harm by state agents, private actors, or groups without adherence to established legal processes, , or protections. This includes actions ranging from summary executions and arbitrary killings to non-lethal measures such as beatings, forced displacements, or property destruction imposed unilaterally to address perceived offenses. In international human rights contexts, it is characterized by the absence of any lawful framework authorizing the act, distinguishing it from authorized responses. The scope extends beyond isolated incidents to systematic practices, encompassing both state-sponsored operations—such as employing lethal force without —and non-state actions, including mob justice or community-enforced reprisals. Examples include the deliberate killing of individuals suspected of crimes by police without judicial proceedings, which qualifies as an extrajudicial execution when it exceeds necessary and proportionate force. Non-lethal forms, like extrajudicial detentions or corporal punishments by informal tribunals, fall within this purview when they bypass formal courts and lack legal sanction. This breadth reflects causal patterns where weak institutional enables such measures as substitutes for protracted judicial systems, often targeting marginalized groups or political opponents. While primarily associated with violations of the and fair trial under instruments like the , the concept's application varies by jurisdiction; for instance, some domestic laws may tolerate limited extrajudicial actions in extreme scenarios, though international standards deem these presumptively unlawful absent strict necessity. Empirical data from monitoring bodies indicate prevalence in conflict zones and high-crime areas, where gaps incentivize bypassing courts to achieve rapid deterrence, though such practices frequently escalate cycles of retaliation rather than resolving underlying threats. Credible documentation emphasizes even for tacitly endorsed non-state acts, underscoring the erosion of rule-of-law principles when punishment precedes evidence-based adjudication.

Distinctions from Judicial Processes

Extrajudicial punishment is characterized by its execution outside the framework of established judicial systems, lacking any formal , authorization, or adherence to procedural norms. In judicial processes, punishment follows a structured sequence involving formal charges, presentation of , adversarial proceedings, and a judgment rendered by an independent and impartial , ensuring and reviewability. By contrast, extrajudicial actions impose penalties—such as execution, detention, or physical harm—summarily, often by state agents like police or security forces, without prior or legal safeguards. A fundamental procedural divergence lies in the denial of rights in extrajudicial punishment. International standards, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on (ICCPR), require judicial proceedings to uphold the , the right to legal representation, of witnesses, and access to appeals, all of which mitigate errors and protect against arbitrary outcomes. Extrajudicial punishment circumvents these, resulting in arbitrary deprivations of life or liberty without evidentiary scrutiny or the opportunity for defense, as seen in summary executions where death occurs without any trial equivalent. The locus of authority further delineates the two: judicial punishment is vested exclusively in the , insulated from executive or legislative interference to preserve impartiality and the . Extrajudicial punishment, however, devolves to non-judicial actors—such as , vigilantes, or administrative officials—who act unilaterally, absent the checks of judicial oversight or public inherent in systems. This absence of institutional separation enables rapid but unchecked application, violating prohibitions against arbitrary deprivation under ICCPR Article 6, which permits deprivations only through lawful judicial processes.

International Law and Prohibitions

The prohibition of extrajudicial punishment under international law derives primarily from protections against arbitrary deprivation of life and the right to due process, as codified in binding treaties and reinforced by customary norms. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and entering into force on March 23, 1976, states that "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." Extrajudicial punishments, which impose penalties without judicial determination of guilt, contravene this by enabling arbitrary outcomes absent legal safeguards. Complementing this, Article 14 of the ICCPR mandates equality before courts and tribunals, entitling individuals to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial authority established by law for determinations of criminal charges or civil rights. The Committee, in General Comment No. 32 (2007), interprets this provision as prohibiting trials or punishments conducted by non-judicial bodies lacking independence, such as executive panels, thereby encompassing extrajudicial measures that sidestep formal adjudication. General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 further obligates states to enact laws preventing extra-legal killings, conduct thorough investigations into suspicious deaths, and prosecute perpetrators, emphasizing that violations like summary executions demand accountability to uphold the non-derogable . The UN Economic and Social Council, through Resolution 1989/65 adopted on May 24, 1989, established the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, directing governments to criminalize such acts, ensure they are punishable as offenses under national law, and implement effective investigative mechanisms. These principles, while non-binding, reflect state practice and opinio juris, contributing to the status of the prohibition against extrajudicial executions, which binds all states regardless of ratification. In contexts of armed conflict, Common Article 3 of the of 1949 similarly bans violence to life and person, including summary executions, for those not actively participating in hostilities. Broader extrajudicial punishments, such as arbitrary detention or corporal penalties without trial, are proscribed under ICCPR Article 9 (liberty and security of person) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted December 10, 1984, entered into force June 26, 1987), which forbids acts causing severe pain or suffering as punishment when inflicted by or with state acquiescence. The , operational since July 1, 2002, under the (1998), treats widespread or systematic extrajudicial killings as (Article 7), prosecutable when part of state or organizational policy. Despite these frameworks, enforcement remains uneven, often reliant on domestic implementation and international monitoring bodies like UN special rapporteurs, with reports documenting persistent violations in over 30 countries as of 2023.

Historical Contexts

Pre-Modern and Colonial Eras

In ancient and early medieval societies, blood feuds constituted a widespread form of extrajudicial punishment, enabling kin groups to exact retribution for harms such as or injury without recourse to centralized judicial authority. These feuds operated as reciprocal cycles of violence, where the victim's family pursued and punished the offender or their relatives directly, often resulting in deaths or exiles to restore balance. In early medieval , customary law explicitly sanctioned such feuds as a valid means of redressing wrongs inflicted on family members, perpetuating social order through private enforcement amid weak state institutions. Similarly, in pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon , families held the legal prerogative to kill those accused of serious crimes in blood feuds, fostering prolonged vendettas until mitigated by compensatory systems like wergild or royal edicts around the 10th century. Feudal extended extrajudicial practices through decentralized lordships, where nobles wielded bannum—the right to summon, , and punish subjects summarily on their estates, particularly for , , or by peasants lacking appeal rights. Such executions, often by or beheading without formal trials, prioritized rapid deterrence in rural domains distant from royal courts, with lords acting as de facto s and enforcers. Vigilante collectives also emerged in regions with sparse official policing, forming ad hoc groups to capture and punish felons through beatings, banishment, or when manorial or justice proved ineffective or delayed. This reliance on local, unmediated retribution reflected causal necessities of sparse , though it risked escalation into broader conflicts absent oversight. During the colonial era, European powers replicated and adapted these patterns in overseas dominions, where remote frontiers and resource constraints necessitated summary measures by governors, militias, or settlers. In British North American colonies, "" involved community-led executions or floggings of horse thieves and deserters without trials, as formal courts were underdeveloped in settlements. Spanish colonial administrators in the , drawing from vigilante traditions rooted in the term's , empowered local enforcers (vigilantes) to conduct impromptu punishments against indigenous resisters or bandits, bypassing audiencias in vast territories. In British India, amid the 1857 uprising, officers like John Nicholson authorized mass summary hangings—over 1,000 in alone—to quell swiftly, circumventing amid logistical breakdowns. These practices underscored how colonial exigencies, including communication lags and security threats, justified extrajudicial actions as pragmatic extensions of metropolitan feudal logics, though they often amplified ethnic tensions and arbitrary killings.

20th-Century State Practices

In the , the of 1936–1938 under involved widespread extrajudicial executions orchestrated by the through "troikas"—administrative panels bypassing courts—to target alleged enemies of the state. , issued in July 1937, explicitly authorized these troikas to impose death sentences without trial on categories such as "kulaks," criminals, and anti-Soviet elements, resulting in quotas for executions across regions. Declassified records indicate approximately 386,000 executions under this order alone by November 1938, contributing to a total of around 681,000 executions during the purge period. Nazi Germany's practices included the Night of the Long Knives, spanning June 30 to July 2, 1934, when directed the SS and to extrajudicially eliminate perceived rivals, primarily (SA) leaders like , to consolidate power and eliminate internal threats. Official figures reported 85 deaths, though estimates range up to 200, with killings extending to political opponents and incidental victims mistaken for targets. During , mobile killing squads conducted systematic extrajudicial massacres in occupied from 1941 onward, executing over 1.3 million Jews, , and Soviet civilians in mass shootings without judicial process, as documented in their own operational reports. China's , initiated by in 1966 and lasting until 1976, featured state-sanctioned extrajudicial punishments through mechanisms like "cowsheds"—unofficial detention sites run by , work units, and revolutionary committees—where suspects faced confinement, forced labor, , and execution without legal recourse. The devolved authority to mass organizations, endorsing against "class enemies," which led to localized mass killings; for instance, in province from 1970–1973, 130,000 were detained as " elements," with 2,540 deaths reported. Overall , including beatings and suicides under duress, contributed to 1–2 million deaths, though precise attribution to state-directed extrajudicial acts varies due to suppressed records. Argentina's military dictatorship during the (1976–1983) systematically employed forced disappearances as extrajudicial punishment against suspected subversives, with security forces abducting, torturing, and killing victims in secret centers before disposing of bodies at sea or in mass graves. Declassified U.S. intelligence estimates the number of disappeared at 10,000 to 30,000, targeted as part of a doctrine labeling left-wing opponents as terrorists. These operations, coordinated by junta leaders like , evaded judicial oversight to maintain deniability and operational secrecy.

Post-World War II Developments

Following , extrajudicial punishments proliferated in conflicts and operations. In during the 1945–1949 independence war against Dutch forces, Captain led special units that conducted summary executions of suspected rebels, resulting in at least 3,000 civilian deaths in alone through methods including mass shootings without trial. Similar practices occurred in from 1954 to 1962, where military units executed thousands of FLN suspects in operations rationalized as necessary to combat guerrilla tactics, though exact figures remain disputed due to limited documentation. During the , Latin American regimes under the National Security Doctrine employed death squads for systematic extrajudicial killings of perceived subversives, often with U.S. training and technological support. In El Salvador's civil war (1980–1992), right-wing paramilitary groups linked to the military killed an estimated 75,000 people, including over 800 in the 1981 , targeting leftist sympathizers without judicial process. Argentina's 1976–1983 orchestrated the disappearance and execution of up to 30,000 individuals via "death flights" and clandestine centers, framing them as anti-communist measures. These squads, operating semi-autonomously, blurred state and vigilante lines, contributing to widespread . In the post-Cold War era, targeted killings evolved with precision technology, particularly in . Israel's policy, formalized in the 1980s and intensified after the 2000 , involved state-authorized assassinations of Palestinian militants, with over 2,300 such operations by 2014, justified under self-defense claims despite international criticism as extrajudicial. The , post-2001, conducted thousands of drone strikes in Pakistan, , and , killing an estimated 2,200–3,700 militants and 380–800 civilians by 2018, under a framework deeming them lawful in armed conflict but bypassing traditional for non-citizens. These developments marked a shift toward remote, selective executions, amid debates over their legality under .

Rationales and Justifications

Deterrence Against Persistent Threats

Proponents of extrajudicial punishment in high-threat environments argue that it serves as a deterrent against persistent threats—such as terrorist networks or syndicates—that evade conventional judicial processes due to jurisdictional gaps, evidentiary challenges, or willingness to operate in . By delivering swift and certain elimination of key actors, these measures impose immediate costs on threat actors, compelling them to divert resources toward rather than offensive operations, thereby creating windows of reduced activity. This rationale posits that, absent such interventions, persistent threats exploit legal protections to regroup and strike repeatedly, as seen in cases where captured operatives are quickly replaced or judicial trials fail to neutralize leadership. Empirical assessments of targeted killings, a common form of extrajudicial punishment against , provide partial support for short-term deterrence effects. In Israel's campaign against Palestinian militants from 2000 to 2006, operations eliminated over 300 targets, correlating with immediate declines in suicide bombings and other attacks as organizations like entered periods of dormancy to reorganize security protocols. A quantitative analysis of these strikes found that successful targeted killings reduced quarterly terrorist attacks by approximately 20-30% in the ensuing months, attributed to leadership decapitation disrupting planning cycles and instilling fear of vulnerability among operatives. Similarly, in contexts, such as U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan against affiliates between 2004 and 2013, data indicated temporary suppressions of militant activity following eliminations, with attack frequencies dropping by up to 50% in localized areas post-strike. However, long-term deterrence remains contested, as persistent threats often adapt through rapid and , mitigating net reductions in violence. Israeli data from the same period showed no sustained overall decline in levels, with new leaders emerging and attack volumes rebounding within 6-12 months, suggesting disruption over permanent deterrence. In dynamics, the certainty of extrajudicial response can elevate perceived risks for potential joiners, particularly in ideologically driven groups where martyrdom narratives compete with survival instincts, but empirical models indicate that deterrence strengthens when paired with dominance rather than standalone . These findings underscore that while extrajudicial measures can buy tactical breathing room against unrelenting adversaries, their deterrent value hinges on sustained operational and minimal collateral incentives for retaliation.

Necessity in High-Risk Environments

In environments dominated by non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations operating in ungoverned territories or insurgent-held areas, formal judicial processes often become impractical due to risks to personnel, lack of secure detention facilities, and the potential for suspects to continue orchestrating attacks from custody or during transit. Proponents of extrajudicial measures, including targeted killings, argue that these actions enable rapid disruption of command structures and imminent threats, where capture would expose forces to ambushes or allow evasion in hostile terrain. For instance, in against irregular groups, the deliberate elimination of high-value individuals—such as planners or financiers—prevents operational continuity that could result in casualties, as traditional timelines exceed the window for threat mitigation. Historical and operational data from campaigns underscore this rationale. During U.S. drone operations in Pakistan's from 2004 to 2016, strikes neutralized approximately 2,500 to 4,000 militants, including key figures like al-Zawahiri's predecessors, in regions where Pakistani authorities lacked effective control and ground raids risked high casualties. These actions were justified by U.S. officials as necessary under Article 51 of the UN Charter, given the inability to prosecute in absent sovereign cooperation or secure environments. Similarly, in and against ISIS from 2014 to 2019, coalition targeted strikes on over 100 high-value targets fragmented , contributing to territorial losses by the group, as delays in judicial handling could have enabled coordinated bombings or suicide attacks in populated areas. Military analyses further contend that in such contexts, extrajudicial neutralization aligns with operational imperatives when insurgents exploit judicial gaps, such as infiltrated courts or overwhelmed legal systems, to regroup. A review of past efforts, including British operations in Malaya (1948–1960) and U.S. actions in (2001–2021), indicates that summary measures against embedded threats reduced attack frequencies by targeting networks faster than protracted trials, though long-term stability requires complementary governance reforms. Critics from organizations, however, often overlook these kinetic necessities, prioritizing normative prohibitions over empirical threat dynamics in fluid battle spaces.

Community and Vigilante Responses

In contexts where formal judicial systems are perceived as ineffective, corrupt, or absent, communities have resorted to actions as a means of enforcing norms and deterring threats, often viewing such responses as necessary for immediate and order. typically involves non-state actors administering without , driven by distrust in state institutions; empirical surveys in indicate that support for such practices correlates strongly with low confidence in , with approximately 20% of respondents endorsing amid high rates and influence. This rationale posits that community-led fills a security vacuum, enabling local deterrence where official processes fail to deliver timely . Historical instances illustrate this dynamic, such as the Committees of Vigilance in 1851 and 1856, where citizens organized to execute or banish suspected criminals amid rampant corruption and inadequate policing during the era, resulting in over 20 summary executions and the restoration of perceived public order. Similarly, in colonial and frontier settings, settler communities in the formed posses to lynch horse thieves and bandits when distant courts offered no recourse, with records from the 1880s documenting hundreds of such extrajudicial killings as self-protective measures against persistent predation. Proponents argued these actions prevented escalation by signaling swift communal retribution, though outcomes varied, with some groups dissolving once state authority strengthened. In contemporary settings, persists in regions with state incapacity, such as rural , where community patrols since the 1990s have conducted lynchings—over 300 documented between 2000 and 2015—against suspected thieves and gang members, justified by residents as vengeance and order maintenance in areas abandoned by national forces. In Mexico's state, autodefensa groups formed in 2013 to combat drug cartels, killing or detaining hundreds of enforcers in extrajudicial operations, with participants citing the state's inability to protect locals from and as the impetus; these efforts temporarily reduced cartel incursions in controlled territories before federal intervention. Such responses leverage interpersonal trust within communities to enforce , potentially lowering local through informal deterrence, as associational bonds foster where formal systems legitimacy. However, reliance on subjective accusations risks targeting innocents, underscoring the tension between short-term efficacy and long-term stability.

Criticisms and Abuses

Erosion of Due Process and Rule of Law

Extrajudicial punishment directly erodes by authorizing deprivations of life or liberty without judicial authorization, fair hearings, or opportunities for defense, contravening the fundamental requirement under for killings to be verified as lawful by a competent . This practice denies the and rights to evidence presentation and appeal, as enshrined in Article 14 of the ICCPR, substituting arbitrary state or action for impartial . Consequently, it undermines the by vesting unchecked punitive power in non-judicial actors, fostering for murder under national penal codes and eroding public confidence in legal institutions as the sole arbiters of justice. In state-led campaigns, this erosion manifests through systematic bypassing of trials, as seen in the ' "" initiated by President on June 30, 2016, where police and unidentified assailants killed at least 6,000 suspected drug offenders in the first 10 months, often based on unverified lists without arrests or hearings. documented cases of planted evidence and summary executions, which violated Philippine constitutional guarantees under Article III, Section 1, and international prohibitions, enabling a cycle where supplanted courts and normalized extra-legal lethality. Similarly, in Pakistan's province, police "encounters" resulting in over 100 alleged militant deaths in 2024-2025 have been condemned for staging killings to evade trials, promoting a vengeance-driven culture that supplants evidentiary standards with presumptive guilt. Vigilante or non-state extrajudicial acts exacerbate this decay by fragmenting the state's monopoly on legitimate , as evidenced in Bolivia's "Black October" events, where killed 67 civilians—including children and pregnant women—amid protests, with no subsequent prosecutions or investigations upholding under the Inter-American framework. Such precedents illustrate how the absence of procedural safeguards invites errors, , and escalation, as unchecked power incentivizes fabricated justifications for killings, weakening the predictability and equality central to rule-of-law principles. Over time, this normalization diminishes incentives for formal justice, as perpetrators face minimal deterrence, perpetuating institutional distrust and alternative "justice" mechanisms.

Risks of Error, Corruption, and Escalation

Extrajudicial punishments inherently amplify risks of factual errors due to the absence of adversarial proceedings, evidentiary standards, and appeals processes that characterize judicial systems. In the U.S. drone campaign against militants in Pakistan from 2004 to 2018, strikes killed an estimated 2,515 to 4,026 people, including 424 to 969 civilians, representing a civilian casualty rate of approximately 16-24% according to data compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. These errors often stemmed from faulty intelligence, such as misidentifying civilians as combatants based on patterns of behavior or proximity to targets, without opportunities for verification or contestation. Similarly, in the Philippines' drug war under President Rodrigo Duterte from 2016 onward, over 12,000 individuals were killed in police operations, with at least 95% of classified "wrongful deaths" lacking police reports or evidence of due process, as admitted by Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla in March 2025. A notable case involved the 2017 killing of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos, initially framed as a drug suspect resisting arrest, but later proven wrongful through witness testimony and video evidence, resulting in murder convictions for three officers in December 2018. Corruption exacerbates these errors by enabling personal or institutional abuses, where enforcers exploit unchecked for gain or vendettas. In the drug war, investigations revealed police fabricating , extorting payments to spare lives, or eliminating personal rivals under the guise of anti-drug operations, with internal audits uncovering "quotas" for kills that incentivized fabrication. In Pakistan, endemic "thana culture" within —characterized by and —has led to extrajudicial executions where officers target innocents for financial kickbacks or to settle scores, as documented in systemic reviews of police practices. Guatemala's historical death squads in the 1980s, involving state-linked actors, similarly abused extrajudicial for political elimination and , with ongoing cases in 2023 exposing forced disappearances and executions tied to elite interests rather than justice. Such practices erode accountability, as perpetrators face minimal repercussions absent judicial oversight, fostering a culture where power imbalances dictate outcomes over . These mechanisms often precipitate escalation, transforming isolated punishments into cycles of retaliation and broader conflict. Empirical patterns in counter-terrorism contexts, such as U.S. drone strikes, show civilian deaths correlating with increased militant recruitment; for instance, a 2% "hit rate" on intended targets in early Pakistan operations (killing 50 civilians per militant) fueled local resentment and insurgent resurgence, per Pakistani military assessments. In vigilante or state-backed settings, the lack of resolution mechanisms perpetuates revenge dynamics, as seen in Nigeria's extrajudicial police killings, where unaddressed abuses have sustained communal violence and distrust, amplifying retaliatory attacks. Theoretical frameworks link this to vengeful individual psychology scaling to societal levels, where perceived injustices from erroneous or corrupt punishments provoke disproportionate responses, entrenching instability rather than deterrence. Overall, without institutional checks, extrajudicial approaches risk converting targeted actions into self-reinforcing loops of violence, as evidenced by persistent conflict trajectories in affected regions.

Human Rights and Normative Objections

Extrajudicial punishment violates core human rights protections under international law, foremost the right to life, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by 173 states as of 2023, states that "every human being has the inherent right to life" and that this right "shall be protected by law," with no one subjected to arbitrary execution. This provision explicitly bars state agents from imposing death or severe punishment without legal authorization, as extrajudicial acts bypass judicial determination of guilt. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, affirms in Article 10 the entitlement to a "fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal" and in Article 11 the presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to law. United Nations Economic and Social Council Resolution 1989/65, adopted on May 24, 1989, outlines principles for the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary, and summary executions, declaring such acts unlawful and requiring states to prohibit orders or practices authorizing them. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, established in 1982, classifies these punishments as deliberate killings outside legal frameworks, constituting grave breaches that erode the foundational right to life essential for all other rights. Human rights bodies, including the UN Human Rights Committee, have ruled in cases like Kindler v. Canada (1993) that transferring individuals to face potential extrajudicial risks violates ICCPR obligations, emphasizing procedural safeguards against arbitrary punishment. Normatively, extrajudicial punishment fails deontological standards of by denying procedural legitimacy, which philosophers argue is prerequisite for morally permissible sanction. Legal punishment theories posit that to punish derives from a ensuring impartial application of law, rendering ad hoc or summary measures akin to unlicensed retribution rather than . Without , such acts cannot confirm desert or proportionality, violating the to treat persons as ends, not means to security ends, as Kantian frameworks demand respect for rational through fair . Critics contend this bypasses retributive aims, as absent of imposes harm without moral warrant, potentially equating state action to and forfeiting the deontological claim to monopoly on . From a rights-based normative view, extrajudicial practices inherently disrespect human dignity by presuming guilt and forgoing appeals or mitigation, principles embedded in just deserts theory requiring verified wrongdoing for sanction. Even consequentialist objections aside, deontologists maintain that procedural voids render punishment categorically impermissible, as they replicate the arbitrary power punishment seeks to curb, undermining societal moral order. These arguments hold irrespective of efficacy claims, prioritizing intrinsic justice over expediency.

Empirical Assessments

Evidence on Effectiveness and Outcomes

Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of extrajudicial punishment in deterring threats or reducing crime is limited, often confounded by methodological challenges such as , underreporting, and the difficulty of isolating causal effects from concurrent factors like increased policing or economic shifts. Studies generally indicate short-term disruptions in specific contexts, particularly counter-terrorism, but long-term outcomes frequently include escalation, replacement of actors, and net increases in violence due to retaliatory cycles or power vacuums. In counter-terrorism, targeted killings have demonstrated temporary efficacy in disrupting operations. A 2006 analysis of Israel's policy during the Second Intifada (2000–2004) used reactions of Israeli bus companies as a proxy for perceived terrorism risk, finding that successful assassinations of militant leaders reduced the expected monthly number of suicide attacks by approximately 0.77, with bus bombings declining by about 50% in the three months following high-profile operations; unsuccessful attempts showed no such effect, suggesting the policy's value lay in actual elimination rather than mere threat. However, broader reviews of U.S. drone strikes and similar programs indicate mixed results, with short-term attack reductions (e.g., 10–20% dips post-strike in and ) often offset by leadership regeneration and backlash, leading to no sustained decline in global jihadist activity. Vigilante and community-based extrajudicial actions yield inconsistent outcomes, frequently exacerbating violence. In , , the 2013 emergence of autodefensas groups against s correlated with a 63% rise in s during their active phase (2013–2014), though extortions fell by 10% and kidnappings showed non-significant changes; disbandment in 2014–2017 triggered a 135–180% surge, attributed to resurgence and inter-group conflicts, per paired t-tests on municipal from INEGI (2011–2017). Similar patterns appear in other non-state cases, where initial crime suppression gives way to fragmentation and higher overall lethality without institutional integration. State-led campaigns, such as the ' 2016–2022 under President Duterte, report official reductions in index crimes (e.g., a 63% drop in crime volume from 2016 to 2020 per data), coinciding with over 12,000 extrajudicial killings by mid-2022, yet independent assessments highlight temporary effects driven by fear-induced underreporting rather than eradication, with homicide rates rebounding post-peak and evidence of fabricated statistics undermining claims of deterrence. Outcomes include widespread , as police incentives tied rewards to kill counts, and disproportionate targeting of low-level users (over 80% of victims per autopsy reviews), yielding no verifiable decline in drug supply or structures. Across cases, extrajudicial measures prioritize severity over of apprehension—contrary to criminological consensus that the latter drives deterrence—while amplifying risks of error (e.g., 20–30% civilian casualties in targeted strikes) and normative erosion.

Comparative Case Studies

In the , President Rodrigo Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs, launched in June 2016, exemplifies state-tolerated extrajudicial killings, with police and unidentified gunmen responsible for over 12,000 deaths of suspected drug users and dealers by 2023, according to monitoring. Official data reported a 63% decline in overall index crimes from 2016 to 2020, attributed by the government to the campaign's deterrent effect, though independent analyses question the methodology, noting that many killings were reclassified as non-criminal to understate violence. Long-term outcomes remain contested, as drug trafficking persists and impunity for perpetrators endures, with the investigating potential as of 2021. Contrastingly, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan from 2004 to 2018 targeted and leaders, constituting extrajudicial executions outside judicial oversight, with estimates of 2,200 to 3,800 militants killed alongside 150 to 900 civilian casualties per the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Empirical evaluation using captured documents reveals the strikes disrupted operational planning, eliminating key figures like in 2009 and reducing the group's attack tempo by forcing leaders into hiding, though they did not eradicate the network and prompted short-term retaliatory spikes in violence. Unlike broader campaigns, the precision of intelligence-driven targeting minimized widespread escalation, but legal critiques highlight violations of due to inadequate post-strike accountability. Vigilante groups in Mexico's state, emerging around 2013 to combat drug cartels amid perceived state failure, illustrate non-state extrajudicial punishment through summary executions and territorial control. An empirical assessment of 81 municipalities found that presence correlated with a 63% increase in monthly homicides initially, as groups clashed with cartels, while reducing kidnappings and s by disrupting extortion rackets; however, after co-optation in 2014, rebounded without sustained crime reduction. This contrasts with state-led efforts by showing how decentralized amplifies fragmentation and retaliation among criminal factions, leading to net escalation rather than deterrence, with over 1,000 vigilante-related deaths documented by 2015. These cases highlight causal patterns: targeted state extrajudicial actions, as in U.S. drones, achieved tactical disruptions with contained collateral effects due to superior , whereas diffuse killings in the yielded perceptual security gains but entrenched corruption, and initiatives in exacerbated homicidal violence through power vacuums. Empirical cross-comparisons underscore that effectiveness hinges on operational control and post-action , with uncontrolled applications risking cycles of retaliation over enduring threat reduction. In counter-terrorism efforts following the , 2001 attacks, the expanded the use of drone strikes for targeted killings, often classified as extrajudicial by critics due to the absence of judicial oversight or capture alternatives. Under President (2009–2017), approximately 563 drone strikes occurred in , , and , killing an estimated 3,000–4,000 individuals, including 324 civilians according to one analysis of Bureau of data. President (2017–2021) conducted 2,243 strikes globally, revoking Obama-era requirements for public reporting of civilian casualties in non-war zones, which obscured accountability. President (2021–present) introduced new rules in 2022 limiting strikes outside active war zones to imminent threats but maintained the framework, with strikes continuing in and elsewhere, prompting concerns over persistent extrajudicial practices. The ' "" under President (2016–2022) exemplifies state-encouraged extrajudicial killings in anti-narcotics campaigns, with official data reporting over 6,600 deaths by police operations by 2019, while groups estimate totals exceeding 12,000, including vigilante-style executions of suspected users and dealers without trials. Duterte's public rhetoric, including offers of rewards for killing suspects, correlated with a surge in such incidents, peaking in 2017 with monthly averages of 100–200 killings; the issued an in 2025 alleging his involvement in at least 76 murders as . Vigilante justice has trended upward in regions with high crime and perceived institutional failure, particularly and parts of and . In , where homicide rates averaged 21.5 per 100,000 inhabitants from 2010–2020—three times the global average—public support for vigilantism rose due to distrust in police, with groups in Mexico's state forming autodefensas in 2013 to combat cartels, resulting in hundreds of extrajudicial deaths of suspected criminals amid cycles of retaliation. In the and , mob lynchings over rumors of child trafficking or cow slaughter increased, with 73 police "encounters" (summary killings) reported in , , from 2017–2019. documented 845 extrajudicial killings, many by , from 2013–2017, with negligible investigations. Overall trends from 2000–2025 indicate a persistence of extrajudicial punishments in asymmetric conflicts and governance vacuums, with underreporting complicating global tallies; noted challenges in verifying killings, while state actions like Saudi Arabia's 2018 highlight targeted eliminations of dissidents. Empirical data gaps persist, but regional spikes correlate with policy shifts toward rapid deterrence over , as seen in a 3.7% annual homicide rise in tied partly to responses from 2008–2018.

Global Variations

State-Sponsored Applications

State-sponsored extrajudicial punishments involve governments or their agents imposing severe sanctions, frequently lethal, on individuals suspected of crimes or threats without adherence to judicial , often rationalized as imperatives for regime stability, public safety, or . These actions typically bypass legal safeguards such as presentation, defense rights, and appellate review, relying instead on executive or military determinations of guilt. Empirical records from monitors and declassified documents reveal patterns of systematic application in authoritarian and unstable regimes, as well as selective use by democratic states in asymmetric conflicts, with death tolls ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands per campaign. In during the era, (1975–1983) represented a multinational framework for state-orchestrated extrajudicial repression, coordinated among military dictatorships in , , , , , and to eliminate perceived communist sympathizers through abductions, , and executions. Declassified U.S. archives and survivor testimonies indicate the operation facilitated at least 60,000 extrajudicial killings and disappearances, including cross-border renditions and assassinations, with 's junta alone responsible for up to 30,000 "desaparecidos" between 1976 and 1983. Similarly, in El Salvador's (1980–1992), government-affiliated death squads, often comprising military and elements, executed suspected leftist insurgents and civilians without trial, accounting for the bulk of an estimated 75,000 war deaths; notable incidents include the 1981 , where Salvadoran troops killed over 800 non-combatants, including children, in a punitive sweep. Contemporary instances persist in anti-narcotics and efforts. In the , President Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs, launched in June 2016, prompted police and vigilante killings of suspected users and dealers, with official data and independent tallies recording over 12,000 deaths by 2022, many involving planted evidence or summary shootings without warrants or investigations. In counter-terrorism domains, the executed targeted killings via drone strikes in Pakistan, , and starting in 2004, authorizing 542 under President Obama alone (2009–2017), resulting in 3,797 total deaths including 324 civilians, based on nominations bypassing federal courts and relying on intelligence assessments of imminent threats. has conducted analogous operations since the 1970s, with and military units assassinating over 2,300 targets including Palestinian militants and Iranian nuclear personnel through airstrikes, bombings, and covert actions, as in the 2020 killing of nuclear scientist ; while maintains these as preemptive self-defense under , critics classify them as extrajudicial due to the absence of trials. These applications vary by regime type and context: authoritarian states like those in Operation Condor integrated extrajudicial measures into broad counter-subversion doctrines, yielding high civilian tolls from indiscriminate squads, whereas targeted programs in Israel and the U.S. emphasize precision against high-value individuals, though error rates and collateral deaths—estimated at 10–20% civilians in drone cases—underscore risks of misidentification absent judicial scrutiny. Documented outcomes include short-term deterrence of threats but escalation of grievances and recruitment for insurgencies, as observed in post-strike militant surges in Pakistan. Prosecutions remain rare, with international bodies like the ICC investigating Philippine cases but facing jurisdictional pushback.

Non-State and Vigilante Forms

Non-state extrajudicial punishments encompass actions by individuals, communities, or informal groups to impose penalties outside formal legal frameworks, often in response to perceived failures of state authority or cultural norms. These include executions, mob lynchings, and family-enforced sanctions, which bypass and judicial oversight. Historical precedents trace to organized committees, such as the formed in 1851 amid rampant crime and corruption during the ; this group executed four individuals and banished dozens more before disbanding after three months, citing the need for swift order in a lawless environment. A second iteration in 1856 similarly targeted , conducting trials and punishments independently of courts. In contemporary settings, vigilante forms proliferate where state enforcement is weak or distrusted, leading to mob justice and targeted killings. In , cow protection vigilante groups have lynched individuals suspected of cow slaughter or beef consumption, with 44 such fatalities recorded between May 2015 and December 2018, predominantly affecting Muslim and minorities; these acts often involve impromptu mobs responding to rumors, escalating communal tensions. In , mob justice accounted for 846 murders between 2017 and 2018, driven by community frustration with police inefficacy against , resulting in beatings, burnings, or stabbings of suspected thieves without evidence or trial. Latin American contexts, including and , feature similar incidents, with empirical datasets documenting hundreds annually in rural areas where state absence fosters vengeance-based retribution. Honor killings represent a familial variant, where relatives punish perceived violations of sexual or familial honor, often through . Globally, approximately 5,000 such cases occur yearly, concentrated in regions like , the , and migrant communities in and ; perpetrators justify actions as restoring , with victims typically relatives accused of illicit relationships or autonomy. , 37 honor killings were documented from 1990 to 2021, involving immigrant families enforcing cultural codes irrespective of host laws. Empirical studies indicate support for these non-state punishments correlates with low confidence in judicial systems and perceived procedural injustices, though outcomes frequently involve erroneous targeting and cycles of retaliation rather than deterrence.

Counter-Terrorism Contexts

In counter-terrorism operations, extrajudicial punishments often involve targeted killings of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives, bypassing formal judicial processes to neutralize imminent threats or dismantle operational networks. These actions, frequently executed via drone strikes or precision raids, are justified by states as acts of against non-state actors unbound by , though critics classify them as unlawful executions. The formalized such practices post-9/11 under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, authorizing lethal force against affiliates without trial when capture is infeasible. The U.S. drone campaign, spanning , , , and from 2004 onward, eliminated key figures such as in on September 30, 2011, and in on July 31, 2022. Empirical research on strikes in and during 2004–2011 found associations with decreased incidence, lethality, and use of suicide bombings or IEDs by militants, challenging narratives of retaliatory blowback and supporting short-term disruption of terrorist capabilities. However, long-term evaluations indicate mixed results, with leadership decapitation yielding temporary operational halts but frequent replacement by successors, as seen in al-Qaeda's resilience post-bin Laden's killing on May 2, 2011. Israel has employed targeted killings systematically against Palestinian militants during the Second Intifada (2000–2005) and more recently against and following the October 7, 2023, attacks, which killed approximately 1,200 Israelis. Operations during the Intifada achieved higher success against senior political leaders, correlating with reduced suicide bombings, per econometric analyses of attack patterns. Post-2023 escalations included the elimination of secretary-general on September 27, 2024, via airstrike in , disrupting command structures but not eradicating the group's arsenal or recruitment. Overall, while providing tactical advantages in , these measures have not demonstrably ended terrorist campaigns, as organizations adapt through decentralized structures.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/extrajudicial
  2. https://academic.oup.com/book/46569/chapter/408132621
  3. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14624745221079456
  4. https://www.omct.org/en/what-we-do/extrajudicial-killings
  5. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=lucilr
  6. https://acjol.org/index.php/najp/article/download/7801/7514
  7. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SCULawRw/2016/4.pdf
  8. https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-executions
  9. https://trialinternational.org/topics-post/extrajudicial-executions/
  10. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet11rev.1en.pdf
  11. https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/files/2019/01/HRLR-50.1-Aceves-A-Primer-on-Extrajudicial-Killing.pdf
  12. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
  13. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf
  14. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading
  15. https://www.danceshistoricalmiscellany.com/blood-feud-early-medieval-francia/
  16. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zqsqjsg/revision/2
  17. https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Enforcing-the-Law-in-Medieval-Europe
  18. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/caroline-elkins-legacy-of-violence/
  19. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/16862/excerpt/9780521116862_excerpt.pdf
  20. https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/nkvd-mass-secret-operation-n-00447-august-1937-november-1938.html
  21. https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust/The-Einsatzgruppen-and-their-fellow-mobile-killers
  22. https://dspace.allegheny.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d88e028c-033e-4a78-9611-c11fe491581a/content
  23. https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/chronology-mass-killings-during-chinese-cultural-revolution-1966-1976.html
  24. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/argentina-declassification-project-dirty-war-1976-83
  25. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2022/07/12/archipelago-death-brutality-japanese-and-dutch-counterinsurgency-operations-indonesia/
  26. https://www.tni.org/en/article/waging-counterinsurgency
  27. https://laii.unm.edu/info/k-12-educators/assets/documents/retanet_social_studies/human-rights-in-latin-america.pdf
  28. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/40215/chapter/344572158
  29. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-world-history-of-genocide/genocide-in-latin-america-19502000/66E14B352BB9F27BD20BF6B563067680
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7560/706477
  31. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/targeted-killings
  32. https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/targeted-killing-and-the-rule-of-law/
  33. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol46/iss4/3/
  34. https://warontherocks.com/2016/09/targeted-killing-thinking-through-the-logic/
  35. https://www.hsaj.org/articles/152
  36. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=poliscitheses
  37. https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/309eb59f-b0be-447e-b056-41ff4d9eccfb/content
  38. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19434472.2024.2333243
  39. https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NYI207.pdf
  40. https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/targeted-killings-work/
  41. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol2/iss2/1/
  42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23526906
  43. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2847137/peacekeeping-operations-to-address-counterinsurgency-and-criminal-deviance-in-m/
  44. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2007/RAND_OP185.sum.pdf
  45. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0839en.pdf
  46. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/vigilantes-and-the-state-understanding-violence-through-a-security-assemblages-approach/685C8DB8EDFD487B1BBB0EA2DDE3C3B2
  47. https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-585
  48. https://academic.oup.com/book/6890/chapter/151116160
  49. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00104140231169026
  50. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act330051993en.pdf
  51. https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/03/02/license-kill/philippine-police-killings-dutertes-war-drugs
  52. https://www.amnesty.org/en/projects/the-philippines-war-on-drugs/
  53. https://www.thefridaytimes.com/03-Sep-2025/the-peril-of-extrajudicial-killings-and-the-erosion-of-justice
  54. https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8946801/file/8946820.pdf
  55. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war
  56. https://globalnation.inquirer.net/269118/95-of-wrongful-deaths-in-dutertes-drug-war-has-no-police-reports-remulla
  57. https://apnews.com/article/8695b0f065df4bc785b5892bd46068e5
  58. https://www.hrw.org/tag/philippines-war-on-drugs
  59. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/09/27/crooked-system/police-abuse-and-reform-pakistan
  60. https://www.wola.org/analysis/guatemala-death-squad-dossier-case-dismantled-corrupt-political-legal-system/
  61. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/accuracy-of-the-u-s-drone-campaign-the-views-of-a-pakistani-general/
  62. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2203&context=ccr
  63. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
  64. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment/
  65. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
  66. https://iep.utm.edu/m-p-puni/
  67. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/steiker.pdf
  68. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20.2.193
  69. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2020.1816683
  70. https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/do-targeted-killings-increase-or-decrease-terrorism-evaluating-evidence-and-other
  71. https://acleddata.com/report/drug-war-rages-philippines
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5645061/
  73. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
  74. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
  75. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd18039c196.pdf
  76. https://tnsr.org/2022/01/were-drone-strikes-effective-evaluating-the-drone-campaign-in-pakistan-through-captured-al-qaeda-documents/
  77. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa330132013en.pdf
  78. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/srhreports/toc/toc/1/
  79. https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2976119/were-drone-strikes-effective-evaluating-the-drone-campaign-in-pakistan-through/
  80. https://millercenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/unilateralism-droning-on.pdf
  81. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207
  82. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-president-bidens-new-rules-drone-strikes-and-lethal-force
  83. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/philippines-duterte-involved-least-76-killings-icc-alleges-rcna233124
  84. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/03/philippines-former-president-dutertes-arrest-a-monumental-step-for-justice/
  85. https://igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Citizen-Security-in-Latin-America-Facts-and-Figures.pdf
  86. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/extrajudicial-killing-state-killing
  87. https://theconversation.com/operation-condor-why-victims-of-the-oppression-that-swept-1970s-south-america-are-still-fighting-for-justice-186789
  88. https://yipinstitute.org/article/operation-condor-and-the-horrors-of-u-s-foreign-policy
  89. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/12/11/remembering-us-backed-state-terror-in-el-salvador
  90. https://cja.org/where-we-work/el-salvador/
  91. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1198912731
  92. https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data
  93. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/15/targeted-killing-secrecy-drone-memos-excerpt
  94. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/09/27/one-map-to-visualize-70-years-of-targeted-assassinations-by-israel_6727462_4.html
  95. http://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israel-targeted-killings-case
  96. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/04/european-assistance-to-deadly-us-drone-strikes/
  97. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holder-weve-droned-4-americans-3-by-accident-oops/
  98. https://www.legendsofamerica.com/sanfrancisco-vigilantes/
  99. https://www.americanheritage.com/vigilante-justice
  100. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/asia/india-cow-vigilante-hrw-report-intl
  101. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00104140231169026
  102. https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/the-horror-of-honor-killings-even-in-us/
  103. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00111287221128482
  104. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719037.2024.2399145
  105. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/public-support-vigilantism-experimental-study
  106. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1396&context=jil
  107. https://www.ejil.org/article.php?article=292&issue=15
  108. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=fac_works_papers
  109. https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/impact-us-drone-strikes-terrorism-pakistan-and-afghanistan
  110. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqv004
  111. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/download/8292/9875/0
  112. https://icct.nl/publication/counter-terrorism-targeted-killing-hassan-nasrallah-hezbollah-weaker
  113. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/targeted-killings-wont-destroy-hezbollah
  114. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546553.2021.1880234
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.