Recently a number of articles have been published that are of particular interest with respect to the development and use of drones.
William Wan and Peter Finn, “Global race on to match U.S. drone capabilities, Washington Post, July 4, 2011
Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker, “War Evolves With Drones, Some Tiny as Bugs,” New York Times, June 19, 2011
Peter Beaumont, “Campaigners seek arrest of former CIA legal chief over Pakistan drone attacks: UK human rights lawyer leads bid to have John Rizzo arrested over claims he approved attacks that killed hundreds of people,” The Guardian, July 15.2010
Michael Tennant, “U.S. Begins Drone Strikes in Somalia,” The New American, July 14, 2011
In previous articles, The Trenchant Observer has pointed to some of the troubling issues in international law raised by the use of unpiloted aircraft or drones in situations removed from the active battlefield in an on-going armed conflict.
Now, with other countries driving to develop comparable military capabilities in the form of drones, some as tiny as bugs, the short-sightedness of U.S. military policy regarding drones has come fully into view.
Moreover, as far as is publicly known, the United States has done nothing to develop in cooperation with other countries new international legal regimes and norms that might help to control what appears to be a headlong rush toward real anarchy among the nations of the world.
President Barack Obama rarely, if ever, speaks of international law. In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, he spoke not of international law and legal norms, but rather of international “rules” or “norms”. The words “international law” are absent from his discourse.
One consequence has been an approach to international law that can be summed up as “If I can get away with it I can do it,” a formulation that goes back to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous dictum about “the bad man theory of law”.
The system of international law is different from the domestic system in which a “bad man” might focus on the law only in terms of what he might be able to get away with. For the nations that are subject to international law are themselves the creators of the norms of international law. They are at once the legislature, the sheriff and the potential offender. This creates a dual responsibility on the part of nation states and their lawyers: They must not simply interpret international legal norms in a permissive way that allows them to do what they want, but also act to safeguard and strengthen the system of international law, and the way international legal norms wiil be interpreted by other countries. This is sometimes referred to by international lawyers as the “double-function” (or “dédoublement fonctionnel”) of international lawyers and states: in choosing a course of action they must not only seek to pursue their own short-term objectives, but also the critically-important longer-term objectives of building a viable international legal order that will contribute to their own security.
It is precisely in this area, of the obligation to build future international norms and regimes, while not weakening those that exist, that the United States has utterly failed with respect to drones. In past eras, legal regimes to prevent the use of space for military purposes, or the seabed, were developed in order to shape the future environment in which force might be employed. This the Obama administration has failed to do with respect to drones, both as a result of a very short-sighted pursuit of immediate military advantages through their use, and as a result of the fact that President Obama does not seem to understand very deeply the function of international law in safeguarding the nation’s security.
To facilitate reflection on these issues and the legality under international law of the use of drones, a review of the following articles previously published here might be useful.
UPDATE: Anwar al-Aulaqi: Targeted Killings, Self-Defense, and War Crimes, August 6, 2010
Targeted Killings: U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston Publishes Report to U.N. Human Rights Council, June 2, 2010
Targeted Killings by Drone Aircraft: A View From India, and Some Observations, May 20, 2010
Targeted Assassinations: Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, International Law, and Strategic Implications, February 17, 2010
U.S. Targeted Assassinations Violate Citizen’s Right to Life and Due Process, Undercut International Law
February 3, 2010
As Thomas M. Frank (1931-2009), a distinguished international lawyer and professor of international law at New York University, and Edward Weisband once observed, we should be careful whether to observe and how to interpret international law, because “the law you make may be your own.”
See Thomas M. Franck and Edward Weisband, “The Johnson and Brezhnev Doctrines: The Law You Make May Be Your Own,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 979-1014 (1970).
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: acceptance speech, Afghanistan, African, allgemeinen Regeln des Völkerrechtes, Allies, American citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, arbitrary, armed reprisal, article 2 paragraph 4, Article 2(4), Article 25, Article 51, Artikel 25, assassins, authorization to kill, authorized to kill, Basic Law, Chase Madar, CIA, CIA drone atacks, customary international law, death warrant, dédoublement fonctionnel, Dennis C. Blair, Department of Justice, Director of National Intelligence, double function, drone, drone attacks, drones, Drones tiny as bugs, dubai, Elisabeth Bumiller, Ellen Nakashima, European, executions, extrajudicial, Federal Republic, Fifth Amendment, FRONTLINE, general principles, general rules, George Clemenceau, German Constitution, Germany, global race, Grundgesetz, guardian.co.uk, Hamas, hit squads, House Intelligence Committee, human rights, Human Rights Council, human rights law, Humanitarian Law, ICJ, India's National Magazine, International Court of Justice, International Human Rights, International Law, International Security Assistance Forces, ISAF, Israel, John Cherian, jus cogens, Latin, Latin American, law of war, lethal force, Litvinenko, Maghreb, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, Mahmud al-Mabhuh, Michael Tennant, Mossad, NATO, New American, New York University, Nicaragua decision, Nicaragua vs. United States, Nobel Prize, North Africa, office of the legal adviser, Oslo speech, Pankaj Mishra, past actions, Paul Gimigliano, Peter Beaumont, Peter Finn, Peter Hoekstra, Peter Meaumont, Philip Alston, predator, public international law, reprisal, School of Law, self-defense, Somalia, South Asian, Special Rapporteur, Spencer S. Hsu, Stanley McCrystal, State Department, state department lawyers, summary, Tags: Anwar al-Aulaqi, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Terrorism, terrorist activities, The Guardian, The Hindu, Thom Shanker, Thomas M. Franck, U.N., U.N. Charter, U.S. citizen, U.S. Constitution, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United Nations, United States Foreign Relations, use of force, Viktor Yushchenko, Völkerrecht, war crime, war crimes, Washington Post, William Wan, World Court, Yemen