In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: drones

12 Aug

Mihai Martoiu Ticu It’s a very dangerous technology. Imagine George Bush with electrodes on his head in the dock at ICC giving away that all he wanted was to rob Iraq and control the rest of the world instead of bringing democracy, freedom and fighting terrorism. Or imagine that Koh should have to deliver his speech about drones with such a device on his head and all the read leds detecting lies would explode. Benjamin Davis Orwell's Thought Crimes. Ugh! Best, Ben...
12.08.10 | |

06 Mar

...(discussing these cases (and relying on your great work on piracy)). Mihai Martoiu Ticu If I understand it correctly there is no problem in violating the sovereignty of other states when U.S. invades other countries for oil, kills people with drones, abducts, tortures and rapes El-Masri. One can even sue foreign states when designated by U.S. as terrorist. But sovereignty becomes a problem when big bucks are held accountable. Francisco Forrest Martin Prof. Kontorovich: U.S. v. Furlong addressed the crime of piracy, whereas the ATS is a civil statute. The...
06.03.12 | |

19 May

Salstate As far as I can make out, this person is saying the US can kill whoever it wants wherever it wants…and we should trust them that they follow a rigorous procedure to ensure that such killings are covered by their laws - which they passed to make sure they could kill whoeever and wherever they want. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Osama hit was one they could come pretty close to justifying, but they use the same justification for the slaughter of people with drones, some, possibly...
19.05.11 | |

07 Dec

...temporal limits on such participation. So although I agree that the U.S. would never deliberately target children for no reason, I do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility that it is willing to consider children lawful targets when IHL would say they're not. Mihai Martoiu Ticu Children carrying soda bottles have potential hostile intent because the bottles can be full of potassium chlorate. The only problem is to program drones to recognize soda bottles. John C. Dehn Adding to what Chris said, U.S. soldiers are trained that...
07.12.12 | |

04 Nov

...border, but throughout Pakistan and plausibly anywhere else where enemy combatants may be found. It may also be that if the CIA is constrained by the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of detainees then it is also authorized to remotely pilot the drones against enemy combatants not captured. Kevin Jon Heller Howard, You are absolutely right. I was not thinking specifically about KSM when I claimed that Bush authorized the commission of war crimes; I was thinking about all of the detainees captured in Afghanistan, which clearly satisfy the nexus....
04.11.10 | |

10 Nov

...complex issues. But the only answer that is most certainly not correct is the one which you offer, that is that all of these incidents are part of one big, single IAC. At any rate you also conflate the legality of the US actions under the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello. To take the strikes in Pakistan as an example, my understanding of the facts (which might be completely wrong) is that Pakistan gave persmission to the US to operate its drones there. If so, a jus...
10.11.08 | |

24 Sep

...because he defended the wall built in Palestine, the massacre of Jenin, the acts of the government against its people in Bahrein. On the other hand, the other lawyer you admire, H. Koh, justified the invasion of Grenada and he is not liked in NY for his defense of drones. I called them club of invaders since the countries they represent have ivaded other countries, like Chile who invaded Bolivia in 1879, if you didn't know. So, there's lot of water under the bridge in the problem between Bolivia and...
24.09.15 | |

21 Oct

...lie is fairly standard for that neck of the woods - consider, e.g., Pakistan's continuing denial of consent for US drone attacks while publicly available satellite imagery shows US drones previously operating from Pakistani airfields. Kerry tried to do just that, but has obviously now been called out. Perhaps the Washington Post and Opinio Juris are not widely read in Afghanistan and this façade can continue. Or perhaps it is ultimately for the better as a more rapid US withdrawal and Taliban takeover, although a short term bloodbath and death...
21.10.13 | |

28 Sep

...and a more nuanced response from the Dutch MFA (also for those who cannot read Dutch) in a recent paper Christophe Paulussen and I wrote surveying EU Member States on such questions (see page 32 et seq. here: http://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ICCT-Dorsey-Paulussen-Towards-A-European-Position-On-Armed-Drones-And-Targeted-Killing-Surveying-EU-Counterterrorism-Perspectives.pdf): "The Netherlands holds that self-defence under article 51 UN Charter can provide a legal basis to use force in case of an (imminent) armed attack.The Caroline-criteria provide a useful instrument in order to assess whether an attack is imminent. From this it follows that general, non-specific, threats by terrorist organisations cannot...
28.09.15 | |

27 Feb

...accuses me of letting policy preferences trump law in response to a post that made no policy claims whatsoever -- and it's my burden to rebut him? But fine. Here are three examples, all of which I have discussed extensively on the blog: (1) I do not believe that Israel is legally occupying Gaza, though I dislike that legal conclusion immensely; (2) I believe that a wide variety of drone strikes are legal, even though I am completely opposed to the the use of drones on policy grounds; (3) I...
27.02.13 | |

11 Apr

...then, with what protections? With respect to "who," outside the territory of the U.S., for example, those who are in the actual "power or effective control" of the U.S. (not those being targeted by high flying drones). Perhaps for this reason, there was inadequate attention to human rights law, but the point could have been made. With respect to h.r. protections, the ICCPR prohibits "arbitrary" death. Lawful targetings during war or self-defense under UN art. 51 would not be "arbitrary." This point should also have been made. Raha Wala Good...
11.04.12 | |

29 May

...our current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this what it takes to win? And, if so, isn't this a price worth paying to get rid of one of the worlds first serious terrorist organisations? The Sri Lankan government shelled the last remaining Tamil positions, we send unmanned drones into Pakistan, and Israel send rockets through people's bedroom windows. The ius in bello does not necessarily forbid "indiscriminate shelling", if that is indeed what they did. It forbids deliberately targeting civilians, and beyond that disproportionate attacks, but even if there...
29.05.09 | |