University of Pennsylvania law and philosophy professor Claire Finkelstein writes in "Targeted Killing as Preemptive Action" about the difficulties of rationalizing targeted killing outside of the realm of typical combat between state actors. Finkelstein characterizes people as noncombatants unless they are a member of a group that includes identification through standardized attire and criminal behaviour patterns. Mississippi College School of Law professor Richard V. Meyer writes that current regulations and standards for targeted killing are inadequate. He says that any entity wishing to carry out targeted killing should first have to declare war on the targeted parties involved. The book's third group of essays analyzes the rationale of self-defence as a justification for targeted killing. Washburn University School of Law professor Craig Martin writes in "Going Medieval: Targeted Killing, Self-Defense and the Jus ad Bellum Regime" that self-defence is not an appropriate rationale for targeted killing because such a justification is restricted to conflicts between state actors. University of Tulsa School of Law professor Russell Christopher writes in "Imminence in Justified Targeted Killing" that self-defence should be ruled out as a suitable position in several examples of potential conflict. He critiques arguments by governments including the United Kingdom and the United States that self-defense can be used as a rationalization of action against imminent danger. Western Washington University emeritus philosophy professor Phillip Montague says in an essay titled "Defending Defensive Targeted Killings" that use of this tactic against combatants can be seen as defensible and justified acts against terrorism or those who assist terrorist organizations. The fourth portion of the book discusses how to make specific choices in targeted killing situations prior to state actors carrying out actions against individuals. University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law professor Amos N. Guiora discusses "The Importance of Criteria-Based Reasoning in Targeted Killing Decisions" and concludes that instead of combatant commanders in the field, lawyers in consultation with decision algorithms must make decisions on targets. Pepperdine University School of Law professor Gregory S. McNeal critiques the arguments of those against targeted killing in his essay, "Are Targeted Killings Unlawful? A Case Study in Empirical Claims Without Empirical Evidence". He differentiates between decision-making processes of the United States military and those of the Central Intelligence Agency, emphasizing the U.S. military tactic of attempting to avoid collateral damage. Ave Maria School of Law associate professor Kevin H. Govern examines the killing of Osama Bin Laden in his piece "Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military Objective?".