In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: drones

20 May

[Jonathan Horowitz is writing in his personal capacity. He is the Associate Legal Officer at the Open Society Justice Initiative’s National Security and Counterterrorism Program.] When assessing the legality of drone strikes, attention is often focused on the State that carries out the strike—usually the United States. On May 8th, for example, the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Taskforce held a hearing on the United States use of weaponized drones abroad and heard testimony that detailed specific incidents of civilian harm and encouraged transparency, after-action investigations, accountability, and...
20.05.13 | |

03 Jun

I have been flattered to be called out on the topic of drones, targeted killing, the CIA, and related issues arising mostly from the release today of Professor Philip Alston’s UN special rapporteur report (press release here). Deborah has a useful summary and some important quotes from the press release in her earlier post. I’ve read the report once, and am reading it again, but am not ready to comment. Well, not quite. I’m under pressure to produce some commentary for some newspaper and print journalism, while getting the grading...
03.06.10 | |

30 Sep

...background on the attack and initial commentary.) We’ve talked extensively about this case here at OJ, so I won’t go back over that ground now. My last comment on drones and targeted killing was this post here at OJ (“Tactically Precise, Strategically Incontinent?”), endorsing the Washington Post’s recent editorial on drones and criticizing David Ignatius’ claim that the US is “addicted” to them. But Lawfare has links to the leading US newspaper accounts if you’d like to see how it is being covered in the United States. I don’t suppose...
30.09.11 | |

25 Jun

...City Bar Association Releases Report on Legality of Targeted Killings by U.S. Drones Under International Law/19.6.14 City Bar Releases Report on Legality of Targeted Killings by U.S. Drones Under International Law Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 - 3:28pm Print Anticipating that targeted killings by drones may increase in the future, both by the United States and by other countries, the New York City Bar Association today released a report analyzing the legality of targeted killings by drones launched by the United States in the context of international law. While noting that...
25.06.14 | |

10 Dec

...Navy to use laser canons to disable /destroy the drones employed by other countries or states or even non- state actors it will be acceptable also as a matter of international law for another country/ state / non-state actor to use laser canons to shoot down or destroy or disable US drones it considers either violating or a threat to its territory or air space even if not actually above the state or country but as long as the drone can "see" into the territory of that other state/ country....
10.12.14 | |

26 May

...of young people at the University of Addis Ababa. “I am convinced that we have one of the strictest, most accountable and fairest programs,” Kerry said. The United States is the only nation known to operate killer drones against foreign targets. “We do not fire when we know there are children or collateral,” civilians, Kerry said. “We just don’t. We have absolutely not shot at high-level targets when we have seen that there are people there.” There are really only two possibilities. The first is that despite the US’s insistence...
26.05.13 | |

01 Aug

...which means more than just separating civilians from combatants. It also requires separating friendly forces from enemy combatants – a process which is totally obscured when a state refuses to acknowledge the use of force. I therefore question whether a covert deployment is a form of “open” warfare consistent with the laws of war and the privilege of combatancy. If this is correct, then for the privilege it doesn’t matter whether drones are deployed by CIA or uniformed personnel – both are unprivileged insofar as the deployment remains unacknowledged. This...
01.08.14 | |

26 Sep

...drone capable of reaching Israel and most of the Middle East…. On Tuesday, Hajizadeh described the new drone as a key strategic additional to Iran’s military capabilities with the ability to carry out reconnaissance missions or be armed with “bombs and missiles.” Hajizadeh, who heads the Guard’s aerospace division, said the Shahed-129, or Witness-129, has a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles). That covers much of the Middle East including Israel and nearly doubles the range of previous drones produced by Iranian technicians, who have often relied on reverse engineering...
26.09.12 | |

18 Jul

It’s not news that the United States has been actively using armed force in Yemen for some time. The Bush Administration reportedly launched a first drone strike against alleged Al Qaeda targets in the country (with the Yemeni government’s cooperation) back in 2002, and of course multiple reports have described the Obama Administration’s use of drones in the country as well (this one among the more recent). But at some level, these strikes have been pitched – and are still usually reported – as one-offs. Yemen is named as among...
18.07.12 | |

13 May

...is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack.” –US Department of Defense, 2009 So, yes, a short story that touches on the legal and ethical questions of using autonomous—not just unmanned—aerial combat drones. The epigrams, by the way, are to real reports. The Lin study was prepred for the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research by the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic. (It is available in .pdf here.) The definition of collateral damage can...
13.05.12 | |

12 Apr

...across an international border, and altering the contours of human rights law’s conception of the use of lethal force in a law enforcement context. These costs may have been somewhat overlooked as the public debate has focused on the use of drones and unmanned technology primarily by the United States. One of the most significant drawbacks might be how a broad concept of imminence could re-order existing notions of sovereignty and reciprocity at the core of international law and interstate relations. In a new world of permissive rules on the...
12.04.13 | |

12 Sep

...territory from being used by the non-state actor to launch attacks. In the case of Syria, there is no question that it is unable to control the territory under ISIS control so further delays are unnecessary. Secondly, the intervening state does so at its own peril. Syria can rightfully interpret any strikes as aggression by the US and it is justified in taking steps to prevent such attacks and to destroy the drones/aircraft conducting such attacks. Um, no. The entire point of arguing self-defence — in any form, including pursuant...
12.09.14 | |