In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: drones

05 Jul

...Guantanamo has and will continue to result in the need to send detainees to countries with far less humane facilities. Critics from the right, like Jack Goldsmith, suggest that the need to use prisons in Somalia and other countries to detain suspected terrorists means there probably is a policy tradeoff between using drones (Obama’s preferred approach) vs. detentions (Bush). This is likely to eventually evolve into a Romney talking point, even though it will likely be small one and unimportant one. As Jamie Kirchick points out here, the real political...
05.07.12 | |

07 Apr

...his omissions in their law review articles – check on Westlaw. Brian Chang I agree with KJH that the NYU petition is disappointing, especially in light of Harold Koh's record in government, an extensive evaluation of which is available here: http://justsecurity.org/21912/harold-koh-nyu-asil-2010-speech-advancing-human-rights/ On the issue of drones in particular, Harold was not just instrumental in advocating for the drones programme to be compliant with international law as he saw it, but also played a key role in ensuring that the legal basis of the programme was publicly articulated, so that it...
07.04.15 | |

09 Apr

Jordan Response... Yet, my draft article addresses some of her claims and demonstrates why some of Mary Ellen's claims are not based in general patterns of practice and patterns of generally shared legal expectation about such practice, and so forth. There are some points of agreement as well, esp. re: who should be flying the drones. Please see http://ssrn.com/abstract=1520717 JJ Paust Howard Gilbert There is no rule about "battlefields". No such rule has ever existed or been imagined in any previous war. When Pettigrew's North Carolinians went looking for shoes...
09.04.10 | |

23 Oct

...Qaeda. Jordan p.s. does any al Qaeda "affiliate" "belong to" a Party to an international armed conflict? Does al Qaeda "belong to" a state? Has al Qaeda ever complied with the rest of Article 4(A)(2) of GPW (e.g., "being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates," "carrying arms openly," "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war")? Jordan RELATED: new op ed at Jurist re: why Amnesty International's new Report on Drone Targetings used the wrong legal standards, see http://jurist.org/forum/2013/10/jordan-paust-drones-justifications.php enjoy! Jordan sorry, try: http://jurist.org/forum/2013/10/jordan-paust-drones-justification.php...
23.10.13 | |

01 Oct

...won't take 500 words. Drones will not come to the US. So many commentators conceive of drones as this unstoppable fantasy weapon that can "rain death from above". Factually, any nation with an even moderately capable air defense network will not have to worry about drones. They can be detected and once detected easily defeated. They require a constant telemetry link with their controllers, a link that is easily jammed, interrupted or even intercepted. So if you want to imagine killing Jack Goldsmith I'm afraid you will have to do...
01.10.11 | |

06 Nov

...relevant practice and opinio juris on this matter. In any event, there is not "admirable" and "stong" legal argument in the reports with respect to proper tests under human rights law (e.g., "effective control" and "arbitrary" killing) and there is inadequate attention to the law of self-defense. Jordan Regarding proper tests under human rights law and the AI Report, see http://jurist.org/forum/2013/10/jordan-paust-drones-justification.php HRW emphasizes the wrong human rights test as well (in its report on pages 83, 86-87) and pays no attention to the law of self-defense and permissible targeting or...
06.11.13 | |

10 Jun

...unable doctrine - that is, why could it not claim that it's not yet a settled part of international law and therefore does not justify drone strikes against its citizens/property in any event? This argument would certainly put the U.S. in a difficult position and one which the Pakistani government could credibly make. Based on this argument, it could arguably even shoot down a U.S. drone as a measure of legal self-defense, as I have written in FP. http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/08/can_pakistan_legally_shoot_down_us_drones - would you say Pakistan would be behaving illegally here? To...
10.06.13 | |

31 May

drone targetings have become far more accurate with less incidental loss of civilian life than with more conventional and otherwise lawful methods and means. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1520717 Mary Ellen's important points for the future include: (1) who should be flying the drones (U.S. military or CIA personnel)?, and (2) in the future, should we regulate fully automated drones (that engage in targetings without "a human in the loop"). p.s. the President does not need special congressional approval to engage in lawful measues of self-defense under U.N. art. 51 -- see, e.g., http://ssrn.com/abstract=2061835...
31.05.12 | |

16 Jan

...It makes some sense that a treaty on terrorism would consider the two seperately, even if in many cases the outcome in terms of who gets bombed or shot might be the same in practice (though not always). There's a number of reasons the CIA is a civilian agency (and should remain so, IMO). The militarization of the CIA lately (running the drones, having a serving General as agency head) is quite alarming, really. CG So, would it be terrorism for a foreign intelligence service to plant a bomb on...
16.01.12 | |

10 Aug

...repeated time and again that Pakistani forces can handle drones themselves and USA must shift drones to Pakistan. Moreover its injustice to say that 3 months ago Pakistan and specially Islamabad was going in hands of Taliban and US was terming Pakistani government incapable 3 months ago. Its all propaganda .Pakistani civilian PPP government led by Zardari is ever strong having full support of Pak army and its allies in provinces , there was insurgency to some extent in swat three months ago and PPP government , not on orders...
10.08.09 | |

25 Mar

...— this was an enormously positive step. Second, on the substance. On first read, I think this is a great statement. It addresses an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. But it also asserts self-defense several times as an alternative. I had been greatly concerned, frankly, that the administration’s lawyers would narrowly confine the justification for targeted killing using drones to situations that would really only cover the military using them on active battlefields. But on first read, this statement does not do that at all....
25.03.10 | |

05 Jun

...civilian contractors to perform various logistics and combat support functions in the theater of operations, from arming and maintaining drones to feeding and housing troops to protecting civilian government officials. Although it once performed these functions (almost exclusively) with members of the armed forces, to my knowledge it considers most if not all of these individuals to be civilians (some of which may take a direct part in hostilities), not belligerents. Under Colonel Maxwell’s proposal, most if not all could be targeted as belligerents if supporting non-state organized armed group...
05.06.12 | |