By Lara Kajs
Dispatches from the Field — The Genocide Report
Washington, DC — 15 July 2022
The killing of Jamal Khashoggi exposed the tension between human rights commitments and strategic alliances, raising enduring questions about the credibility of accountability.
On 2 October 2018, Washington Post contributor and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and was killed inside the facility. In the years since, his death has prompted global condemnation, congressional scrutiny, and ongoing calls for accountability.
Despite extensive evidence regarding the operation, the United States has stopped short of pursuing accountability at the highest levels. Instead, successive administrations have framed their approach as a “recalibration” of relations with Saudi Arabia—effectively redefining the scope of accountability itself.
Intelligence Findings and Attribution
In February 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released an assessment implicating Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the killing. The report cited his control over security and intelligence structures and his support for measures targeting dissidents abroad.
Saudi officials offered shifting explanations in the aftermath of Khashoggi’s disappearance, initially describing the incident as a failed rendition before acknowledging a premeditated killing. Turkish intelligence further contributed to the evidentiary record through audio recordings obtained from within the consulate.
Agnes Callamard, then United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, reviewed the available evidence and concluded that the killing constituted a state-sponsored act in violation of international law.
Consolidation of Power and Patterns of Conduct
Mohammed bin Salman’s consolidation of authority within Saudi Arabia has centralized decision-making to an extraordinary degree. Within this context, the Khashoggi operation is difficult to separate from broader governance structures.
While the Kingdom has implemented certain social reforms, these developments coexist with sustained restrictions on political dissent and civil liberties.
Saudi Arabia’s military operations in Yemen further complicate the accountability landscape. Allegations of unlawful airstrikes on civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, and residential areas—have raised persistent concerns regarding compliance with international humanitarian law.
Strategic Restraint and Policy Tradeoffs
Despite the ODNI’s findings, the United States has not imposed direct sanctions on Mohammed bin Salman. Policymakers have emphasized the importance of maintaining strategic ties with Saudi Arabia, citing regional security interests and energy considerations.
The bilateral defense relationship remains a central factor. Saudi Arabia is a major purchaser of U.S. arms, and these transfers have influenced the scope and limits of U.S. policy responses.
In 2021, the Biden administration announced an end to U.S. support for offensive operations in Yemen and paused select weapons transfers pending review. These measures signaled a shift in tone, but not a full break in strategic alignment.
The decision not to sanction senior leadership reflects a broader policy calculation: that traditional accountability mechanisms may be constrained when applied to high-level state actors.
Limits of Accountability Mechanisms
Sanctions alone are unlikely to alter internal power dynamics within Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom has consistently rejected external pressure framed as interference in its domestic affairs.
Alternative approaches may include sustained international monitoring, transparency in judicial proceedings, and the release of individuals detained for peaceful expression. However, these measures depend on political will—both domestically and internationally.
The United States has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to accountability. The durability of that commitment depends on whether it is applied consistently across cases, including when strategic interests are at stake.
When accountability is selective, deterrence erodes—and impunity adapts.”
Freedom of Expression and State Responsibility
From Recalibration to Credibility
Strategic relationships are an enduring feature of international politics. However, when such relationships limit the pursuit of accountability, they also affect the credibility of stated human rights commitments.
The response to Khashoggi’s killing illustrates a broader pattern: acknowledgment without full enforcement. Over time, this gap weakens deterrence and risks normalizing impunity for similar acts.
Recalibrating a bilateral relationship need not require recalibrating accountability. Where the two diverge, the integrity of both policy and principle is tested.
Atrocity Prevention Lens
While not classified as a mass atrocity event, the killing of Jamal Khashoggi reflects patterns associated with atrocity risk, including repression of dissent, concentration of power, and the use of state apparatus to target individuals beyond national borders. These indicators are often precursors to broader patterns of abuse. Addressing such actions consistently is critical not only for accountability in individual cases but also for reinforcing norms that contribute to atrocity prevention.
Legal Framework
Extrajudicial Killing
The killing of Jamal Khashoggi constitutes an extrajudicial execution under international human rights law, prohibited under customary international law and treaty obligations.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Diplomatic and consular premises are protected under international law. The use of such facilities to carry out acts of violence represents a serious breach of diplomatic norms.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19)
Guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information without interference.
State Responsibility
Under international law, states may be held responsible for wrongful acts attributable to state agents, including actions conducted beyond their borders.
Suggested Citation
Kajs, Lara. “Recalibrating Accountability.” Dispatches from the Field. The Genocide Report, Washington, DC, 15 July 2022.
Photo Credit
Torture in the Kingdom – by POMED – License by CC 2.0 license.
About TGR
The Genocide Report (TGR) publishes analysis and educational resources on conflict, international law, and atrocity prevention. Its work seeks to bridge academic research, field realities, and public understanding of mass violence and civilian protection.
About the Author
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, a Washington, DC-based educational nonprofit focused on atrocity prevention and international law. She is the author of several field-based books on conflict, displacement, humanitarian crises, and international humanitarian law, drawing on extensive research and field experience in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her writing and public speaking focus on atrocity crimes, forced displacement, the protection of civilians, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict.