Christie Allison
Poli480
Professor Shirk
Outline

Intro: When it comes to drones, the U.S. has been acting in its own interests and without any regards for sovereignty of other states. The impact of U.S. drones in relation to Pakistan is one of the most impactful examples. U.S. drones have struck targets in Pakistan an estimated 140 times since 2004, with 44 strikes taken place this year alone. Property and homes have been destroyed and an unknown hundreds of people, or even thousands, have been killed or injured. While many challenge U.S. drone strikes as a matter of military strategy, there are also serious concerns over the whether such strikes are truly “legal.” The U.S. is not at war with Pakistan, yet conducts air strikes in its territory on a near daily basis. This can cause major conflict. Individuals are targeted for killing without any due process of law or attempts to detain. Almost nothing is known about how the program operates or what measures are taken to ensure compliance with international law. U.S. drone strikes are frequently assailed as violations of Pakistani sovereignty. Under international law, states are prohibited from using force in the territory of another state unless the target state has consented, or the attacking state is acting in legitimate self-defense.

            But Pakistan has in some way consented to drone strikes. Reports indicate that Pakistani officials not only consented to such strikes, but share relevant intelligence and even allow drones to use Pakistani airfields. While a lot is still unknown of the scope and substance of its consent, Pakistan has never voiced any formal complaints about the drones. Pakistan’s failure to protest the drone strikes in a way consents them.

            However, statements by various U.S. officials suggest that they do not consider the legality of the strikes to rely only on Pakistani consent. According to the U.S., the drone strikes are also justified by self-defense. The Bush Administration argued that 9/11 triggered the right of self-defense against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, sparking an armed conflict with those entities-- a ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT). The GWOT was thought of as a non-international armed conflict against non-state actors that do not have any territorial boundaries. The Obama Administration may reject the GWOT moniker, but its legal position remains effectively unchanged from that of the Bush Administration. The U.S. still considers itself at war with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their ‘associates,’ and can therefore kill any of their members virtually anywhere in the world.

            But this fundamental premise that the U.S. can be in an armed conflict without any apparent territorial restrictions and against such an ill-defined enemy is argued by many. It sets a dangerous precedent that empowers states to disregard and ignore even the most basic human rights protections and use deadly force outside the traditional means of an armed conflict.

Structured Outline:

-Examination of  U.S. actions regarding drones.

-U.S. involvement in Pakistan.

-How U.S. drones effect Pakistan’s sovereignty.

-Why U.S. is acting in its own interests.

-U.S. trying to solve failed state problem.

-Relation to Krasner readings

Conclusion:

Doubts over the legality of the drone strikes undermine the legitimacy of U.S. and

Pakistani efforts against militancy while legal uncertainty raises the risk to civilians.

U.S. practice may also establish potentially dangerous precedents regarding targeted

killings and the scope of armed conflict.

            Addressing these legal concerns will ultimately require taking away the secrecy

that has surrounded the drone program. The U.S. and Pakistan must publicly explain

the operation and scope of the drone program, investigate civilian casualties, adopt

measures to ensure responsibility, and provide clear legal rationales for their policies and actions.

References

1)      Ronald Shaw, I. G. and Akhter, M. (2012), The Unbearable Humanness of Drone Warfare in FATA, Pakistan. Antipode, 44: 1490–1509.

2)      Williams, A. J. (2010), A crisis in aerial sovereignty? Considering the implications of recent military violations of national airspace. Area, 42: 51–59.

3)      Bergen, Peter, and Jennifer Rowland. "Drone Wars." The Washington Quarterly 36.3 (2013): 7-26.

4)      Lubell, Noam, and Nathan Derejko. "A Global Battlefield? Drone

s and the Geographical Scope of Armed Conflict." Journal of International Criminal Justice 11.1 (2013): 65-88.

5)      Misra, Ashutosh. "Legality of the US Drone Strikes in Pakistan and the Question of Pakistan’s Sovereignty and Accountability towards Terrorist Groups." (2012).

6)      Bryan, Ian. "Sovereignty and the Foreign Fighter Problem." Orbis 54.1 (2010): 115-129.

7)      Taj, Farhat. "The year of the drone misinformation." (2010): 529-535.

8)      Plaw, Avery, and Matthew S. Fricker. "Tracking the predators: evaluating the US drone campaign in Pakistan." International Studies Perspectives 13.4 (2012): 344-365.

9)      Boyle, Michael J. "The costs and consequences of drone warfare." International Affairs 89.1 (2013): 1-29.

10)  Kahn, Paul W. "Imagining Warfare." European Journal of International Law 24.1 (2013): 199-226.