Targeted killing of terrorists has become an established practice in the fight against terrorism. The disturbing consequences of the practice and its increasing political and societal acceptance raise questions as to its justifiability and its place in counter-terrorism. Anna Goppel explores whether targeted killing of terrorists can be justified, both from a moral and an international legal perspective. She discusses moral and international legal limits to state use of lethal force and argues that the moral principles and the international legal regulations allow for the practice only in very specific, very rare, and rather hypothetical cases. The analysis is based on a thorough discussion of the human right to life, the laws and ethics of war, and the relevant moral and legal arguments. This makes it of particular interest to philosophers and legal theorists interested in terrorism, counter-terrorism, human rights, and the legitimacy of defensive state measures.

Looking beyond the events of the second intifada and 9/11, this book reveals how targeted killing is intimately embedded in both Israeli and US statecraft, and in the problematic relationship between sovereign authority and lawful violence underpinning the modern state system. It details the legal and political issues raised in targeted killing as it has emerged in practice, including questions of domestic constitutional authority, the use of force in international law, the law of belligerent occupation, the law of targeting and human rights law. The distinctive nature of Israeli and US targeted killing is analysed in terms of the compulsion of legality characteristic of the liberal constitutional state, a compulsion that demands the ability to distinguish between legal 'targeted killing' and extra-legal 'political assassination'. The effect is a highly legalized framework for the extraterritorial killing of designated terrorists that may significantly affect the international law of force.

Honour Killing in India is a glaring concern in today’s era. As killing a member of the family to preserve the “Honour”- are these killings actually ‘Honourable”? There is a pertinent question attached to honour killings that are- Firstly, who is supposed to decide that a particular situation has brought dishonor to the family? Secondly, how does a person end the life of another person to protect the ‘honour’ of the family? The high number of honour killings in India are not only a replication of the prevailing stark religious and caste-based divisions in Indian society but also an indicator of deep-rooted patriarchal structures which continue to control a person’s autonomy and decision-making. Ultimately, all honour killings enforce a hierarchy of status and are often used to signal caste supremacy to other communities. This Book is going to benefit all students/Scholars/Academicians to gain a vast knowledge in detail about Honour Killings in India. This Book can be used both as Text and Reference form and will develop a rational mindset amongst all – that there is no “honour” in taking a person’s life.

This book explores the representation of real-life serial murders as adapted for the screen and popular culture. Bringing together a selection of essays from international scholars, Serial Killing on Screen: Adaptation, True Crime and Popular Culture examines the ways in which the screen has become a crucial site through which the most troubling of real-life crimes are represented, (re)constructed and made accessible to the public. Situated at the nexus of film and screen studies, theatre studies, cultural studies, criminology and sociology, this interdisciplinary collection raises questions about, and implications for, thinking about the adaptation and representation of true crime in popular culture, and the ideologies at stake in such narratives. It discusses the ways in which the adaptation of real-life serial murder intersects with other markers of cultural identity (gender, race, class, disability), as well as aspects of criminology (offenders, victims, policing, and profiling) and psychology (psychopathy, sociopathy, and paraphilia). This collection is unique in its combined focus on the adaptation of crimes committed by real-life criminal figures who have gained international notoriety for their plural offences, including, for example, Ted Bundy, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, Aileen Wuornos, Jack the Ripper, and the Zodiac, and for situating the tales of these crimes and their victims’ stories within the field of adaptation studies.

We hold many assumptions about police workÑthat it is the responsibility of the state, or that police officers are given the right to kill in the name of public safety or self-defense. But in The Killing Consensus, Graham Denyer Willis shows how in S‹o Paulo, Brazil, killing and the arbitration of ÒnormalÓ killing in the name of social order are actually conducted by two groupsÑthe police and organized crimeÑboth operating according to parallel logics of murder. Based on three years of ethnographic fieldwork, Willis's book traces how homicide detectives categorize two types of killing: the first resulting from ÒresistanceÓ to police arrest (which is often broadly defined) and the second at the hands of a crime "family' known as the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC). Death at the hands of police happens regularly, while the PCCÕs centralized control and strict moral code among criminals has also routinized killing, ironically making the city feel safer for most residents. In a fractured urban security environment, where killing mirrors patterns of inequitable urbanization and historical exclusion along class, gender, and racial lines, Denyer Willis's research finds that the cityÕs cyclical periods of peace and violence can best be understood through an unspoken but mutually observed consensus on the right to kill. This consensus hinges on common notions and street-level practices of who can die, where, how, and by whom, revealing an empirically distinct configuration of authority that Denyer Willis calls sovereignty by consensus.

"In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1917 the foreign trade of the United States in raw and manufactured furs reached nearly, if not fully, the high level of years preceding the war. The imports were valued at $21,553,375, while the exports amounted to $15,729,160, a sum exceeded in only one previous year, 1913 when they were $28,389,586. Home manufacture and utilization of American furs has grown enormously since the beginning of the war. The large export trade of the past year shows, therefore, a production of pelts of unprecedented value, in spite of the fact that the actual number of skins collected must have been less than in previous years. Many former trappers were more profitably employed in other industries, and many were deterred from plying their vocation by the increased restrictions on trapping, especially the costly nonresident licenses. Trapping restrictions properly enforced and limiting the taking of fur to prescribed seasons will result not only in conserving the fur supply but in greatly increasing the quality and value of the annual catch." -- p.2

Explores the rough-and-tumble world of frontier justice, Texas style.

Vols. 65-96 include "Central law journal's international law list."