In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: drones

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 | |

12 Feb

Mihai Martoiu Ticu It strikes me how many Western intellectual jurists just accept that international law is dominated by power. Most of them don't even see how outrageous it is that individuals cannot sue states in an international court for human rights. Guantanamo, torture and killing with drones depend on the political ambitions of the US politicians, not on law. Mauritius cannot sue the UK at ICJ to get the Chagos back. This is another way how power works in international law. Jurists have internalized such facts as facts of...
12.02.13 | |

06 Mar

Jordan I agree that the so-called test is not a limitation of the inherent right of self-defense under customary international law or Article 51 of the UN Charter. But if the rockets are flying across the border, for that time at least, the foreign state is decidedly "unable." Finally published: Operationalizing Use of Drones Against Non-State Terrorists Under the International Law of Self-Defense, 8 Albany Govt. L. Rev. 166-203 (215), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2459649 Enjoy! Shahram Thank you Kevin for drawing attention to the troubling methodology by which self-interested behavior of...
06.03.15 | |

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 | |

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 | |