Faithful readers of this blog - I mean, very faithful readers, the ones who read every post - perhaps know that I have been interested for a long time in a debate that lurks in the background to the debates over targeted killing and drone warfare. This background debate (one of several important ones embedded in the targeted killing arguments) is whether there is a "legal geography of war." That's a term I invented for this paper, but it goes to the question of where and when the laws of war apply, and where it is instead just the Laws of Ordinary Life, in the context of targeted killing. I've written a new, short, non-technical, general audience, and no-notes paper that in final form will be published online by the Hoover Task Force on National Security and Law, of which I'm a member. I have just posted the working version of the paper to SSRN.
Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare: How We Came to Debate Whether There Is a 'Legal Geography of War'. I give my own view in a non-technical way, along with discussion of NIAC and self-defense and other things - but in this essay I'm much more interested in giving my sense of how the debate evolved among various interlocutors over the past ten years. Abstract is below the fold.