This thesis investigates how US state-sanctioned targeted killings, as part of a wider policy of countering insurgents, are being politically justified by the US. The study departs with the aim of understanding the discursive structures where extraordinary measures may be accepted as legitimate. This is exemplified through the design of a case study that undertakes the cases of targeted killings againts two designated jihadi leaders in 2022 and 2023. The inquiry departs from the observation that the US, a key player to the international system, continue to conduct and defend a policy and a measure that is not in direct compliance with international law and regulations. The problem presented is not unusual as the international system is seeing itself depart into new dynamics, where traditional understandings of conlfict, violence, and peace, are being challenged, as well as what is considered optimal conditions for international relations. At the intersection between International Relations and Peace and Conlfict Studies new dynamics sparks questions towards a reinterpretation of customs and conventions of the system. While this is pertinent, this study aims to point towards the parrallel need to investigate the meanings attributed to core concepts of the field of International Relations and Peace and Conflict theory, specifically considering current dynamics. To this end, this study will focus on security as an argument for the use of extraordinary measures.