International Law And Drone Strikes In Pakistan

While conventional warfare has an established body of legal precedence, the legality of drone strikes by the United States in Pakistan and elsewhere remains ambiguous. This book explores the legal and political issues surrounding the use of drones in Pakistan. Drawing from international treaty law, customary international law, and statistical data on the impact of the strikes, Sikander Ahmed Shah asks whether drone strikes by the United States in Pakistan are in compliance with international humanitarian law. The book questions how international law views the giving of consent between States for military action, and explores what this means for the interaction between sovereignty and consent. The book goes on to look at the socio-political realities of drone strikes in Pakistan, scrutinizing the impact of drone strikes on both Pakistani politics and US-Pakistan relationships. Topics include the Pakistan army-government relationship, the evolution of international institutions as a result of drone strikes, and the geopolitical dynamics affecting the region. As a detailed and critical examination of the legal and political challenges presented by drone strikes, this book will be essential to scholars and students of the law of armed conflict, security studies, political science and international relations.

This book analyses the US drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan to assess whether the ‘pre-emptive’ use of combat drones to kill terrorists is ever legally justified. Exploring the doctrinal discourse of pre-emption vis-à-vis the US drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan, the book shows that the debate surrounding this discourse encapsulates crucial tensions between the permission and limits of the right of self-defence. Drawing from the long history of God-given and man-made laws of war, this book employs positivism as a legal frame to explore and explain the doctrine of pre-emption and analyses the doctrine of the state’s rights to self-defence as it stretches into pre-emptive or preventive use of force. The book investigates why the US chose the recourse to pre-emption through the use of combat drones in the ‘war on terror’ and whether there is a potential future for the pre-emption of terrorism through combat drones. The author argues that the policy to ‘kill first’ is easy to adopt; however, any disregard for the web of legal requirements surrounding the policy has the potential to undercut the legal claims of an armed act. The book enables the framing and analysis of such controversies in legal terms as opposed to a choice between law and policy. An examination of the legal dilemma concerning drone warfare, this book will be of interest to academics in the fields of international relations, Asian politics, South Asian studies, and security studies, in particular, global security law, new wars, and emerging technologies of warfare.

Drone strikes have become a key feature of counterterrorism operations in an increasing number of countries. This work explores the various domestic and international legal regimes that govern the manufacture, transfer, and use of armed drones as well as fully autonomous weapons systems where computer algorithms decide who or what to target and when to fire.

Unmanned combat air vehicles, or in common parlance 'drones', have become a prominent instrument in US efforts to counter an objective (and subjective) cross-border terrorist threat with lethal force. As a result, critical questions abound on the legitimacy of their use. In a series of multidisciplinary essays by scholars with an extensive knowledge of international norms, this book explores the question of legitimacy through the conceptual lenses of legality, morality and efficacy, it then closes with the consideration of a policy proposal aimed at incorporating all three indispensable elements. The importance of this inquiry cannot be overstated. Non-state actors fully understand that attacking the much more powerful state requires moving the conflict away from the traditional battlefield where they are at an enormous disadvantage. Those engaging in terrorism seek to goad the ruling government into an overreaction, or abuse of power, to trigger a destabilization via an erosion of its legitimacy. Thus defending the target of legitimacy”in this case, insuring the use of deadly force is constrained by valid limiting principles”represents an essential strategic interest. This book seeks to come to grips with the new reality of drone warfare by exploring if it can be used to preserve, rather than eat away at, legitimacy. After an extensive analysis of the three key parameters in twelve chapters, the practical proposition of establishing a 'Drone Court' is put forward and examined as a way of pursuing the goal of integrating these essential components to defend the citizenry and the legitimacy of the government at the same time.

The drone attacks started in Pakistan in 2004 under the Bush presidency, and are still operating, targeting the so-called ‘High value’ targets. But the high value targets are not achieved, but the local Taliban, and many civilians are being killed in these covert drone strikes. It is noteworthy that, Obama administration has increased these drone strikes in Pakistan as compared to that of Bush administration. President Obama has adopted the policy of ‘to kill and not to capture’ to pursue the high value targets or al-Qaeda members which have taken asylum in some areas of Pakistan. But this policy had caused many civilian casualties, and also destroyed the Pakistan’s sovereignty. The covert drone strikes in Pakistan are conducted by CIA which is not the part of the US army. Many innocent civilians are being killed in these covert drone strikes. Besides loss of life, many people in the drone affected areas had lost their houses and shops in these covert drone strikes. It has been established by many independent research organizations that the covert drone operations cause the civilian casualties, but CIA and the US government has rejected this notion, and the US presidency has shrouded the CIA’s covert drone operations, killing civilians, from congress and courts. The news agencies in the US are given orders, not to show the civilian casualties as it could cause hatred of American people against the US government. This is so because the US government does not want to lose support of its people.

During the past decade, armed drones have entered the American military arsenal as a core tactic for countering terrorism. When coupled with access to reliable information, they make it possible to deploy lethal force accurately across borders while keeping one’s own soldiers out of harm’s way. The potential to direct force with great precision also offers the possibility of reducing harm to civilians. At the same time, because drones eliminate some of the traditional constraints on the use of force—like the need to gain political support for full mobilization—they lower the threshold for launching military strikes. The development of drone use capacity across dozens of countries increases the need for global standards on the use of these weapons to assure that their deployment is strategically wise and ethically and legally sound. Presenting a robust conversation among leading scholars in the areas of international legal standards, counterterrorism strategy, humanitarian law, and the ethics of force, Drones and the Future of Armed Conflict takes account of current American drone campaigns and the developing legal, ethical, and strategic implications of this new way of warfare. Among the contributions to this volume are a thorough examination of the American government’s legal justifications for the targeting of enemies using drones, an analysis of American drone campaigns’ notable successes and failures, and a discussion of the linked issues of human rights, freedom of information, and government accountability.

Essay from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: USA, grade: A-, Webster University (International Relations), course: The United States and its drone program in Pakistan, language: English, abstract: The United States of America’s current lethal drone policy is still shrouded in mystery and complexity: little official information is accessible to the public. This document, therefore, could only raise a certain number of issues. If there were a document detailing the said policy, it could not be found. This paper has had to rely on other various sources to expose the policy elements. It focuses on the war theater in Pakistan/Afghanistan and the drone policy’s lethal elements. Firstly, the paper will delve into the development of the U.S. drone program and the controversial use of an automatized lethal process. Secondly, it will consider elements from the political sphere that shaped the current policy. Thirdly, it will analyze the implication of public opinion in Pakistan and the U.S. Fourthly, the paper will highlight a few of the legal aspects that influenced the drone policy before drawing a conclusion. The most discussed element influencing the drone policy of the U.S has been freely interpreted as the information relating to the matter remains scarce and mostly unofficial. What looked, at first, like a classic security versus democracy dilemma added to a member of the U.S. intelligence community seemingly out of control, a Department of Defense (DoD) with hardly any oversight, gave rise, surprisingly, to a quite controlled but executive branch driven process. One cannot ascertain however whether the safeguards in place, were operative and respected whilst the lethal drone program was progressing.

This book examines public perceptions of the legitimacy of drones, and how this affects countries’ policies on and the global governance of drone warfare. Scholars recognize that legitimacy is central to countries’ use of drones, and political officials often characterize strikes as legitimate to sustain their use abroad. This book introduces and tests an original middle-range theory that allows scholars, policy-makers, and practitioners to understand how evolving patterns of drone warfare globally shape the public’s perceptions of legitimacy that can moderate countries’ drone policies and the global governance of drones. Rather than relate drone warfare to a platform or counterterrorism strikes only, as experts often do, this book argues that drone warfare is best understood as a function of the unique ways that countries use and constrain strikes. By updating theories of drone warfare, this book provides a generalizable way to understand public perceptions of legitimacy in cross-national contexts, especially among democratic political regimes that are prefigured on political officials’ accountability for the use of force abroad. This book will be of interest to students of security studies, foreign policy, media and communication studies, and International Relations.