On June 18, 2023, the Canadian government publicly accused the Indian government of killing Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and a prominent leader in the Khalistan movement that advocates for an independent homeland in the Punjab region of India. This case illustrates an extraterritorial killing—a form of unlawful killing related to extrajudicial killings. Even when a state kills foreign nationals within its borders without due process, it is considered an extrajudicial killing. While extrajudicial killings occur within a country’s borders, extraterritorial killings happen when a nation kills its own citizens or foreign nationals outside its territory.
This commentary explores the dynamics of extraterritorial killing (ET). Assassinations in international armed conflicts involve different legal issues and are not included in the analysis of ET killings. Below, a brief overview of extrajudicial killings will clarify how these two types of unlawful killing are related, as both extrajudicial and ET killings are governed by a broader legal principle that prohibits a state from depriving any person of life without due process.
Extrajudicial Killing
States exercise the right to execute individuals after due process under their respective legal systems, a practice known as capital punishment. Some states impose the death penalty for only a few crimes, while others use it more broadly. Some states have abolished the death penalty altogether. The prohibition of extrajudicial killing does not outlaw capital punishment.
Extrajudicial killing happens when a state kills someone without following proper legal procedures, meaning conviction and the imposition of capital punishment after a fair trial in an appropriate court. Killing during police encounters is the most common form of extrajudicial killing, resulting in thousands of deaths, notably in 2025 in the Philippines (6069), Brazil (5804), Venezuela (5286), India (1731), and the United States (1096).
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states that no state may “deprive any person of life… without due process.” This protection applies to “any person,” including citizens, legal and undocumented immigrants, visitors, as well as spies or individuals who are enemies of the state. Whether the 14th Amendment prohibits ET killings is debated, though US Presidents, as discussed below, are not bound by it. Most countries have laws similar to the 14th Amendment in their legal systems. However, laws on the books do not always guarantee their enforcement.
Note that murder differs from extrajudicial killing. Individuals commit murder, while states carry out extrajudicial killings. However, in many ways, an extrajudicial killing is no less than a murder. Whether intent is essential to define extrajudicial killing or if reckless negligence is enough remains a question.
International Prohibition
International legal protection against unlawful killings is comparable to, but broader than, the protections afforded by the 14th Amendment. International law prohibits a state from killing someone domestically or abroad without due process. For example, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international human rights treaty, states, “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.” Under Article 6, an extrajudicial killing and an ET killing are considered an arbitrary deprivation of life.
Regional human rights treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights, also provide international protection against extrajudicial and extraterritorial killings. Thus, a nation might have multiple concurrent obligations under domestic law and various regional and global treaties it has signed not to engage in arbitrary killings.
Strong arguments exist that even customary international law, without a treaty obligation, prohibits extrajudicial and ET killings. Professor William Aceves rightfully argues that the prohibition against extrajudicial and extraterritorial killings is part of jus cogens, from which no derogation is permissible.
Overt and Covert ET Killings
Despite international law prohibitions, states engage in overt and covert ET killings, citing national security concerns and a lack of access to perpetrators who carry out terrorism against their people and property. Silencing political rivals living abroad has also led to ET killings, which are mostly covert.
States openly acknowledge overt ET killings, such as in January 2020, when the US killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq. President Trump said at the time, “Last night, at my direction, the United States military successfully executed a flawless precision strike that killed the number-one terrorist anywhere in the world.”
In April 2024, India’s defense minister appeared to confirm cross-border killings of alleged terrorists on Pakistani soil, signaling state approval of ET assassinations.
Some ET killings have been litigated in courts. In McCann v. United Kingdom (1995), the European Court of Human Rights, in a close vote of ten to nine, held Britain responsible for unlawfully killing IRA suspects in Gibraltar without exhausting non-lethal means, demonstrating international enforcement of the right to life. Similarly, in Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988), the Inter-American Court unanimously declared that “Honduras has violated, in the case of Angel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez, its obligation to ensure the right to life set forth in Article 4 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 (1) thereof.”
The perpetrating states, such as Russia, North Korea, or others, rarely admit covert ET killings. In 2018, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, carried out inside a Saudi consulate, was an example of covert ET murder. In June 2025, Israel reportedly killed at least 14 Iranian nuclear scientists through targeted strikes. Israel neither took nor denied responsibility.
Executive Due Process
Some states may require a formal executive review before approving a targeted killing abroad. The executive, whether the president, prime minister, cabinet, or a designated “assassination committee,” might review the records of the targeted individual, assess the credibility of evidence against him, and decide whether to kill him to prevent future harm.
Any such executive review does not offer the targeted person the opportunity to present evidence of innocence. However, an executive review provides some legal process and is arguably more justifiable than an arbitrary killing without such a review. A fully transparent state may even share the evidence with the media to support the decision of targeted killing.
In Al-Aulaqi v. Obama (2010), the US district court refused to block the targeting of American cleric Anwar Al-Aulaqi, born in the US, stationed in Yemen, effectively permitting executive review to stand in for judicial due process. The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint “that individuals like his son are placed on ‘kill lists’ after a ‘closed executive process’ in which defendants and other executive officials determine that ‘secret criteria’ have been satisfied.” A US drone strike later killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi.
Killing terrorists anywhere in the world has become widely accepted with or without an executive review process in advance. However, it is unlikely that a government would follow any due process for killing political rivals or critics of the government residing abroad.
Territorial State Responses
The territorial state where the targeted killing takes place may or may not support the targeting state for an ET killing, for several reasons. The territorial state could be an accomplice, with civil or military officials quietly backing an ET killing. In 2011, the US raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which killed Osama bin Laden, raised complex questions of complicity and coordination. The US’s ability to penetrate Pakistani airspace is a key issue. Official statements suggested that the US conducted this operation without Pakistan’s consent. However, it cannot be ruled out that Pakistan had no choice but to allow the US to carry out this ET assassination.
On the other hand, Canada’s strong condemnation of the Indian government’s ET killing of Hardeep Nijjar shows that if the territorial state is not involved, it resents the fact that the targeting state has violated its sovereignty and laws. In such cases, the territorial state may impose diplomatic and economic sanctions on the targeting state to deter similar actions in the future. Similarly, the US acted strongly against the Indian plot to kill another Sikh leader residing in the US and charged a former Indian intelligence official for the attempted assassination.
Conclusion
International law bans extrajudicial and extraterritorial killings because depriving someone of life without due process is a core human right, possibly the most important that the law can protect. However, states conduct overt and covert ET killings, often citing national security reasons. When the territorial state is powerless and collaborates with the targeting state, ET killings are the easiest to execute. Even militarily weak states may have little choice but to allow ET killings on their territory. Strong states, on the other hand, do not accept ET killings and use diplomatic and other sanctions to prevent such acts.
Ali Khan is the founder of Legal Scholar Academy and an Emeritus Professor of Law at the Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. He has written numerous scholarly articles and commentaries on international law. In addition, he has regularly contributed to JURIST since 2001. He welcomes comments at legal.scholar.academy@gmail.com
