Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he would not have authorised the drone strike believed to have killed the Islamic State (IS) murderer known as Jihadi John.

The Labour leader said he "questioned" the legality of the attack, which was carried out by the US with support from the UK.

He also hardened his opposition to extending RAF air strikes against IS into Syria - ruling out giving Labour MPs a free vote on the issue - and criticised France for mounting a wave of raids on the extremists' stronghold of Raqqa in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris.

David Cameron has said targeting Mohammed Emwazi last week was an act of "self defence" as he presented a real ongoing threat to British citizens.

But in a round of broadcast interviews, Mr Corbyn told ITV News: "I would only authorise actions that are legal in the terms of international law."

Pressed on whether he believed attacking Emwazi had been legal, he said: "I question that. Surely if somebody is doing something wrong you act legally against them.

"If we are setting ourselves up as the West, as in accordance with the UN, with international law and of our own laws, then I think we have to act in accordance with them.

"I am awaiting an explanation of where the legal basis was for that incident that went on.

"Obviously people planning things to attack others is wrong, but there is a process to go on about that. That is why I am looking for a political process."

Mr Corbyn made clear to Labour MPs that they should not expect a free vote if Mr Cameron returns to the Commons seeking support for British military intervention in Syria.

"I am just not convinced that a bombing campaign will actually solve anything, it may well make the situation far worse," he told Sky News.

"We will come to a position as a party on this. I don't think that free vote is something that we are offering."

His remarks came amid signs that a growing number of Labour MPs could be prepared to support strikes on IS in Syria in the wake of the Paris attacks.

Mr Corbyn, however, said the French action against IS - also referred to as Isis or Isil - was unlikely to make much difference to the threat posed by the militants.

"There is going to be civilian casualties from the bombing of Raqqa. I'm not convinced that a new bombing campaign will necessarily bring about the solution many people want to see happening," he said.

He also criticised the Government in Britain over policing cuts at a time of a heightened terrorist threat.

"The role of the police in foiling and preventing any plots is an important one so it seems a little strange ... we are cutting police numbers in Britain," he said.

Ultimately he said that the solution to dealing with the threat from IS lay in finding a political settlement to the civil war in Syria which had enabled the group to thrive.

"In the long run there has to be a much wider political settlement in the whole region and in the Middle East, otherwise we are going to get more of this as time goes on," he said.

"At the end of the day all wars have to end by political discussion and a political solution to it.

"We cannot go on in a cycle of wars and destruction one after the other after the other, which is what we are going through at the moment."

Asked by the BBC whether he could ever support military action against IS, Mr Corbyn insisted it was a "hypothetical question".

"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't - I'm saying it's a hypothetical question at this stage. My view is we have to review our foreign policy, review the situation going on in the region, and listen to words put forward by Obama and Ban Ki-Moon - they made some very wise comments at the weekend - there has in the end to be a political solution to it," he said.

"You seem to be trying to move the question solely onto military action. I think there are other actions that can be taken as well."

Mr Corbyn also suggested he would not be willing to authorise a "shoot to kill" policy against terrorists on British streets.

"I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counter-productive," he said.

"I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees of doing things as we know.

"But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that's got to be the priority."