The United States of America’s current lethal drone policy is still shrouded in mystery and complexity: little official information is accessible to the public. This document, therefore, could only raise a certain number of issues. If there were a document detailing the said policy, it could not be found. This paper has had to rely on other various sources to expose the policy elements. It focuses on the war theater in Pakistan/Afghanistan and the drone policy’s lethal elements.
Firstly, the paper will delve into the development of the U.S. drone program and the controversial use of an automatized lethal process. Secondly, it will consider elements from the political sphere that shaped the current policy. Thirdly, it will analyze the implication of public opinion in Pakistan and the U.S. Fourthly, the paper will highlight a few of the legal aspects that influenced the drone policy before drawing a conclusion.
The most discussed element influencing the drone policy of the U.S has been freely interpreted as the information relating to the matter remains scarce and mostly unofficial. What looked, at first, like a classic security versus democracy dilemma added to a member of the U.S. intelligence community seemingly out of control, a Department of Defense (DoD) with hardly any oversight, gave rise, surprisingly, to a quite controlled but executive branch driven process. One cannot ascertain however whether the safeguards in place, were operative and respected whilst the lethal drone program was progressing.
At a glance
- Examines CIA and military drone operations under Title 50 and Title 10
- Compares legal arguments based on international humanitarian law and UN Charter self-defense
- Examines Pakistani public opinion in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas
- 31 sources in the bibliography
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Drone history
3. American political sphere
4. Pakistan/Afghanistan drone intervention
5. Legal aspects
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the development of United States lethal drone policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan and asks how technological change, political decision-making, public opinion and legal arguments have shaped the use of targeted killings.
- The development of surveillance and armed drones
- Automation, operator experience and the ethics of remote killing
- Target lists, covert operations and congressional oversight
- Drone strikes and public opinion in Pakistan and the United States
- International humanitarian law and self-defense
Excerpt from the Book
Legal aspects
How legal are targeted killings? Two main theories have been put forward. One claims that the actions are authorized and approved by Congress giving authorization for military force under IHL provisions against militants after 9/11. The other legal argument says that targeted killings are permitted in case of self-defense under provisions of the United Nation (UN) charter. The text will not make a distinction between targeted killings of U.S. citizens and those of other nationalities.
During the Clinton Administration, the threat of Al Qaeda was recognized. The U.S. government started to look into the legal basis for the use of force against terrorist networks. At that initial stage, the legal approach was to consider the targets as combatants and attack them under the provisions of IHL. Based on their legal units’ advice, successive administrations assumed that they were fighting combatants in an armed conflict. The term “Global War on Terror”, implied a legal definition of “armed conflict” in the traditional sense of IHL. It seems, however, that the formal conditions for such a definition were not fulfilled. Under IHL, an armed conflict between a state and a non-state actor has to rise to a certain level of violence to fulfill the criteria of war as defined in IHL. The isolated targeted killings do not meet the requirements of a minimum required level of hostilities. The persistent fighting has to take place in a theater of war. The entire world cannot be a theater of war. If the criteria for an armed conflict do not apply, there are no “combatants” and therefore no application of IHL (Anderson, 2010). The U.S. Supreme Court however ruled in its Hamdan verdict, that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was applicable when referring specifically to the territory of Afghanistan where, according to the Court, the Geneva Conventions do apply (Dorf, 2007, p.54).
If the provisions of IHL do not apply self-defense, as defined in the UN Charter of 1945, Article 51 is the alternative. Self-defense is a category that is not defined as “armed conflict” involving military forces nor is it law enforcement. Self-defense acts are not new in the U.S. and were in the past mostly used to justify cover operations involving civilian CIA officers. They do not invoke the rules of war defined in IHL, but must, as part of a customary law doctrine, conform to IHL fundamentals such as proportionality and necessity of attacks.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: The author defines the geographical and policy focus and introduces the technological, political, public-opinion and legal questions examined in the paper.
Drone history: This chapter traces unmanned aircraft from early experiments to armed drones and discusses automation, operator experience and ethical questions surrounding remote killing.
American political sphere: The author examines executive orders, target lists, agency responsibilities and congressional oversight in the context of covert operations.
Pakistan/Afghanistan drone intervention: This chapter discusses the development of strikes in the region and considers public opinion in Pakistan and the United States.
Legal aspects: The author examines arguments based on international humanitarian law and self-defense, including questions of proportionality, necessity and individual rights.
Conclusion: The paper reflects on the expansion of drone use, transparency, legal justification and the responsibility of policymakers.
Keywords
drone warfare, targeted killing, United States foreign policy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Intelligence Agency, covert operations, public opinion, congressional oversight, international humanitarian law, self-defense, autonomous weapons
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this paper about?
It examines United States lethal drone policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with particular attention to targeted killings and the controversies surrounding them.
What are the main themes?
The paper addresses drone technology, political oversight, public opinion, covert operations and the legal and ethical implications of targeted killings.
What is the paper’s primary objective?
Its objective is to examine the factors that shaped lethal drone policy, including technological development, political decisions, public attitudes and legal arguments.
What research method does the author use?
The author draws on and analyzes published sources, including scholarly and journalistic writing, public-opinion studies and legal arguments.
What does the main body cover?
It traces drone development, examines the American political sphere, discusses intervention and public opinion in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and considers legal justifications for targeted killings.
Which keywords characterize the paper?
Key terms include drone warfare, targeted killing, covert operations, Pakistan, Afghanistan, international humanitarian law and self-defense.
How does the paper distinguish CIA and military operations?
It discusses CIA strikes under Title 50 authorities and Joint Special Operations Command operations under Title 10, including their different oversight arrangements.
Which legal frameworks does the author consider?
The paper considers arguments based on international humanitarian law and the right of self-defense under the UN Charter, alongside questions about proportionality and individual rights.
How does the paper address public opinion in Pakistan?
It discusses Pakistani reactions to drone strikes and compares cited surveys from the North West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
- Quote paper
- Marcel Reymond (Author), 2012, The United States and its lethal drone policy in Pakistan/Afghanistan, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/203210
