In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: drones

23 Jan

...for the rest. Now we are not even using people, but rather machines (some remotely controlled, others actually autonomous) in a variety of missions. We currently have about 5,000 aerial drones in Iraq (some armed, others not) and something like 12,000 ground robots (we started the war with none) that do things ranging from shooting at incoming missiles and mortar fire (!) to sweeping for IEDs (using a robot based on the household cleaning Roomba, believe it or not). If we are not even sending people to war but machines,...
23.01.09 | |

01 Jan

...1, 2, 3). There was even some tart satire. Opinio Juris bloggers brought their own perspectives to the many debates this past year concerning different aspects of national security policy. For example, Deborah tracked the legal issues concerning drones, considering both US law and international law and also focusing in on the CIA’s approach to drones, while Kevin argued why the public authority defense would not apply to the CIA targeted killing of a US citizen, and Peter addressed the overlap of nationality issues and the regulation of NSA intelligence...
01.01.14 | |

04 Feb

Though he admits that evidence that came from enhanced interrogation techniques was used to find Osama Bin Laden, outgoing Secretary of Defense and former CIA chief who oversaw the Bin Laden operation, Leon Panetta, has said that Bin Laden could have been found without resorting to torture. The German Defense Ministry has confirmed Germany will acquire armed drones. The number three leader of Ansar al Dine in Northern Mali has been arrested near the Algerian border. The US and Iran seem to be serious about negotiations about Iran’s developing nuclear...
04.02.13 | |

23 Oct

Let’s just say international law was not a fulcrum in last night’s debate. It’s not like the topic was being discriminated against — many important topics were ignored. (Among them the Eurozone crisis, climate change, cyberwar, NATO, anything much of Asia beyond China, Mexico or Canada.) Bob Scheiffer asked a question about drones, which Romney answered by agreeing with the Obama approach and which Obama answered not at all. The words “international law” were actually uttered by Obama in the context of “atrocities” committed by Iran, this after Romney suggested,...
23.10.12 | |

26 Feb

...the place of law; Kevin has detailed instances in which the Obama administration took positions that were inimical to international law. In short, interactions can lead to invalid interpretation, and the internalization of principles, norms, or legal positions that are inconsistent with established international law. Consider one example that was referred to in Harold’s article, and which was also touched on by both Kevin and Laura – the targeted killing of suspected terrorists with drones in non-consenting states, away from traditional theatres of armed conflict. This one policy has been...
26.02.18 | |

11 Jun

...involvement in decisions about whom to target in U.S. global counterterrorism operations. David Luban’s thoughtful essay on the morality of targeted killing in the Boston Review last week is among the more balanced pieces I’ve come across on the topic, and unquestionably worth reading. Drawing on recent articles describing President Obama’s direct involvement in targeting decisions as informed in part by just war theory, Luban puts his finger on a truth about targeting that has largely been lost in the public debate: that targeted killing (by drones or otherwise) is...
11.06.12 | |

12 Mar

...that it is instead just a series of political arrangements, that was an early warning that our officials live in a different world than the people they are supposed to serve. The Obama administration is not much better. The State Department believes that international law is law, but it argues that it is legal for President Obama to use drones to kill suspected terrorists, even if innocent people around them are also killed. Even if international law is law, what good is it if our executive branch claims that it...
12.03.12 | |

09 Nov

This week on Opinio Juris, we brought you a healthy diet of treaties, chemical weapons, drones, and a sprinkle of terrorism. Duncan rounded up various treaty related news items this week, and argued that US treaty practice does not have to be a zero-sum game. Peter posted about the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearings on a possible Understanding that would limit anxieties about the domestic impact of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The main event this week however happened across the street from the...
09.11.13 | |

27 Apr

...advocacy have debated this since 9/11. It argues that the Bush administration’s assertion of a global war on terror and its claims of the legal incidents of war on a worldwide basis caused a backlash among its critics, toward geographical constraints on war as formal legal criteria. This was a shift away from the traditional legal standard that war takes place, and the law of war governs, where(ever) there is “conduct of hostilities.” Drones and targeted killing, insofar as they are asserted within the law of war, particularly strain the...
27.04.11 | |

19 Apr

...were fired into the Israeli resort town of Eilat, both causing no injuries. The President of the ICRC, Peter Maurer, has urged the United States to exercise a “very restrained use of drones” in their strategy against al-Qaeda, reiterating that if drones are used outside of a recognized armed conflict, “there is a problem.” EJIL: Talk! has a post by Gena Heathcote entitled: Is it the right time to reconsider jus ad bellum proportionality? A response to Kretzmer’s “The inherent right to self-defense and proportionality in jus ad bellum.“ Over...
19.04.13 | |

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 | |

16 Jan

...But privately, they say that one of the critical requests relates to intelligence that could be used for targeting purposes, said the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about intelligence and diplomatic matters. Evaluating the request involves “understanding what the French objectives are and really how they intend to go about them and against whom,” the official said.… The official said contingency plans for the use of armed drones were already in place and are being reevaluated. The official would not be more specific. Hard to figure...
16.01.13 | |