In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: drones

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 | |

06 May

...the international system will see it corrected. I would suggest, however, that we are watching the opposite occur. The US military operational strategy, in using drones and special operations forces to make targeted killings of individuals associated with specific terrorist organizations in a number of disparate geographical locations seems to me to be founded on the proposition that the US is currently engaged in a noninternational armed conflict with these specific terrorist orgaizations. As clumsily done as it has been, the message from the US national security establishment is unambiguously...
06.05.11 | |

03 Nov

Steve Groves LOL on #5, Julian. I agree with you, though it would help even more if the Alaska Senate seat goes to Miller. And don't count on a "President Palin" to push for LOST, even though she's from Alaska ... Jordan Response... Re: targeted killing, likely to expand to include more targets in Yemen? and some in Mexico (drones fly along parts of the border now and Secretary Clinton remarked that the narco-terrorist-organized criminals are acting "like" insurgents)? On propriety of targeting, even a U.S. national in Yemen outside...
03.11.10 | |

09 Jul

...justification. From the beginning, however, this enemy has been treated as "the worst of the worst" criminals and terrorists, to be treated as harshly as sentenced felons. Trying to have it both ways, logical contradictions are inevitable. Since Hamdi, the detention of enemy combatants has been authorized under the laws of war. The AUMF may be a trigger, but it is not the source of the authority. The AUMF does not contain any language about dropping bombs or using Predator drones against targets in Pakistan. Once you start an armed...
09.07.09 | |

08 Jul

...U.S. soldiers while one is unprivileged -- one merely does not have the privilege to do so and is subject to being prosecuted under a relevant domestic law for murder. I realize that the GTMO milt. comms. apparently do not understand this. Regarding the CIA fliers of drones, May Ellen and I, among others, have pointed out that they would not be combatants under the laws of war (unless they were also members of the regular armed forces of the U.S.), but I had written that practice and opinion seems...
08.07.14 | |

16 May

...a simplistic and uninformed view of how international humanitarian law developed, which was as a constraint on permissible measures of war. Just as international humanitarian law nowhere affirmatively sanctions the use of tanks, planes or machine guns, or even of drones or guided missiles, it does not exhaustively prescribe other permissible measures of war. Rather, it permits any war measures potentially helpful to defeating an enemy armed force that it doesn't prohibit or delimit. As you correctly note, Marco Sassoli calls this military advantage. The U.S. calls it military necessity....
16.05.14 | |