Poli 480
Chad Henry
10/27/13
Drones
and Sovereignty
September 30, 2011
AQAP (Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula) senior member and
US citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed by a US airstrike in Yemen. While the
Pentagon has yet to claim responsibility for the attack, extensive US counter terrorism
efforts have taken place in Yemen as well as Somalia in the post 9/11 years. This
extrajudicial killing of a US citizen has raised questions about the legal
justification of targeted killings. While the laws of armed conflict as well as
the principles of international humanitarian law state that anyone who is engaged
in armed conflict is subject to being killed or captured, the scope of the
current conflict makes the language very ambiguous. Because Al Qaeda as well as
the Taliban operates in multiple countries, combat operations against the
groups also take place in multiple countries thus expanding the scope of the
conflict.
As the nature of conflict has changed from large scale conflicts
in which large armies engage each other in massive military operations, to
guerilla warfare and counter insurgency intensive conflicts, the weapons used
to wage war have also changed. The use of armed but unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) also known as drones, has become a new feature of warfare in the current
conflict. While UAVs are just another weapons in the Pentagons arsenal the fact
that they are remotely piloted from thousands of miles away from the United States
and may or may not be operated by nonmilitary personnel, has raised further
questions as to the legality of their usage.
"Mounting Criticism Sparks
Push to Move Lethal Program to Military From CIA" March 21, 2013 The Wall
Street Journal
Mark Bowden. "The Killing Machines -
Mark Bowden". The Atlantic. 2013-09-22
David Zucchino (March
18, 2012). "Stress of combat
reaches drone crews". Los Angeles Times
I think your topic is extremely interesting. Your argument is that the United States should not use these drones because of the legal problems and that it violates sovereignty of states? Possibly finding more information on whether or not according to international sovereignty if one country attacks a terrorist that is not endorsed or allowed to be in a certain country? The argument is very good and i find it very interesting to look into this subject.
ReplyDeleteHi Chad- exploring the consequences of new technology in politics is always interesting. However, if a country gives permission to the US to invade through the use of drones is that a violation of sovereignty? I ask only to play the devil's advocate. In the second paragraph you shift the argument to question the legality of their use because the drones "may or may not be operated by nonmilitary personnel." Are you suggesting that civilians could also have access to the use of drones? I know you are bright and will come up with a meaty argument to explore your topic. I guess I would just caution you from going in too many directions and to frame sovereignty in a way that supports what you want to explore. Do you want to question the legitimacy of weapon use or are you questioning the legitimacy of asymmetric warfare? I hope you find this useful. Best of luck Chad!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs your argument centered around the "ambiguous" language of the use of drones in 21st century warfare within the international system or is it focusing on the legalities of potential nonmilitary personnel operating unmanned UAV's? As technology moves ever forward, the use of advanced weaponry in military warfare is an inevitability. Therefore, mentioning the death of Anwar Al-Awlaki seems to suggest an objection to the loose interpretation of the use of predator drones/ UAV's within the international system under current legislation. However, the next paragraph seems to focus on actual operators and the legality with which they are allowed to control these pieces of military equipment. Furthermore, from what I understand the drone strike program shifted from CIA control to the DoD with the justification that it fell under counter terrorist operations. Again, is the focus on the interpretation of the law within the international system too loosely explained, or is the proposal arguing the policy that UAV's, potentially being operated by nonmilitary personnel, could produce unintended legal precedents?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, nice choice. Peace.