Much like invocations of ‘targeted killing,’ shoot-to-kill is used to imply a new approach and to suggest that it is futile to operate inside the law in the face of terrorism. However, human rights law already permits the use of lethal force when doing so is strictly necessary to save human life. The rhetoric of shoot-to-kill serves only to displace clear legal standards with a vaguely defined licence to kill, risking confusion among law enforcement officers, endangering innocent persons, and rationalizing mistakes, while avoiding the genuinely difficult challenges that are posed by the relevant threat.” The Special Rapporteur has further suggested that States that adopt shoot-to-kill policies for dealing with, for example, suicide bombers “must develop legal frameworks to properly incorporate intelligence information and analysis into both the operational planning and postincident accountability phases of State responsibility.” They must further ensure that “only such solid information, combined with the adoption of appropriate procedural safeguards, will lead to the use of lethal force.”51 Under international and regional human rights law, the protection against arbitrary deprivation of life is non-derogable even in a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation.52 The Human Rights Committee has stated that “the protection against arbitrary deprivation of life… is of paramount importance. The Committee considers that States parties should take measures… to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities.”53 To comply with international human rights law, any State policy which allows the use of lethal force must, therefore, fall within those narrow cases in which the deprivation of life cannot be considered arbitrary. In order to be considered lawful, the use of lethal force must always comply with the principle of necessity and must be used in a situation in which it is necessary for self-defence or for the defence of another’s life. It must always comply with the principle of proportionality, and non-lethal tactics for capture or prevention must always be attempted if feasible. In most circumstances, law enforcement officers must give suspects the opportunity to surrender and employ a graduated resort to force.54 “The State’s legal framework must ‘strictly control and limit the circumstances’ in which law enforcement officers may resort to lethal force.”55 International humanitarian law contains similar provisions against the “targeted killing” of civilians in the context of an armed conflict (see chap. I). 31