Read Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The violation of international law results from the failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States." So again think of my hypothetical above, with the shoe on the other foot. If another country conducts a military strike in the US, and violates US sovereignty, the claim of self-defense must be against the US (i.e. the member State), not a claim of self-defense against an individual residing in the US.

Essentially, there would be no rule of law if Use of Force was authorized, under the self-defense, so long as one Country alleges a terrorist is residing in another Country. To be fair, under these specific set of facts, it may have been possible to make a case before the Security Council and have the Security Council authorize the Use of Force. However, that is the whole point the US circumvented the established law and acted unilaterally, when they could have gone to the UN presented their case and had a vote on the merits.

Thanks -- I get it now. Not sure I agree with the conclusion due to Yemen's nominal assent to this, but I don't disagree at all with the principle.

As for the shoe on the other foot, that's an ongoing issue with the Polonium Tea incident being merely the latest.

And about killing hundreds of thousands of unrelated civilians?

So, Al-Quaeda allegedly killed 10.000 people.

US then kill about 9000 more of its own citizens to kill some million and a bit more abroad, and cause some everlasting civil wars, including some that made Al-Quaeda, affiliates, allies and splinter organizations stronger, not weaker.

Parent comment was specific that killing a member of AQ in a specific instance was unlawful under International Law. I was asking about that specific instance, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Clarify?

FYI that's called "revenge".

It is not revenge to stop someone who has done you harm, openly states they will do you more harm, and has made additional attempts to cause you harm.