The American government has utilized drone technology in strikes since November of 2002. However, the strikes have gained increased media attention during the Obama presidency. The ‘kill list’ and the drone strikes have shown the United States as well as the world that President Barack Obama can be a heavy-handed defender of America, making difficult, morally grey decisions relating to foreign policy. However, one of the questions which has recently been debated in international law is the legality of the drone strikes- whether taking human lives pre-emptively is a permissible action in the global community.

Why Are We Concerned With Drones Only Now?

As aforementioned, the first drone strikes occurred almost a decade ago, under the Bush administration. In November of 2002, six individuals were killed in a drone strike on Yemen, fired from a CIA base in Djibouti. What’s more, one of the individuals killed was an American citizen.

The average person would expect American citizens to be outraged at this killing and the collateral damage which may have occurred. However, the political climate in 2002 was more conducive to drone strikes. Firstly, there was national fear of terrorism sparked by the events of 9/11. Moreover, the Bush administration was implicated in many other human rights failures, drawing attention away from drone strikes to issues that were ‘closer to home.’ For example, human rights defenders protested against Guantanamo Bay, torture, and military commissions.

Finally, one of the reasons that drone strikes were not condemned during Bush’s two terms in office was that Bush simply did not authorize many strikes. Since drones have been used by the US military, there have been 336 attacks in Pakistan alone. Of those attacks, 284 transpired during Obama’s time in office, making Bush’s drone use seem insignificant in comparison.

War versus Peace

According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taking the life of an individual is permissible as long as it is not ‘arbitrary.’ Consequently, drone strikes can be considered legal if their actions are not arbitrary. However, in order to determine whether there is an acceptable purpose behind the US military’s actions, it is important to regress into a definition of what is considered arbitrary by the international community.

The United States is committing drone strikes in sovereign states, meaning that the only justification for their action can be war. President Bush states that the US effort in the Middle East was a ‘war on terror’ and this is the line that has continually been used to justify its actions.

The International Law Association, an independent law authority, created a committee to work out the definition of ‘war,’ called the Committee on the Use of Force. Under international law, war can only exist when there is intense and sustained fighting by two or more organized and armed groups.

Using this definition, it would seem that the United States is not in a legal position to enact drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, or any other nation where it is not present and not a part of the armed conflict in the region. The only place where the US can perform drone strikes under international law is in Afghanistan because of two reasons: 1) Afghan forces attacked the US before the US interceded and 2) the legitimate government of the nation invited the US to assist in the civil war. In the past, the US was able to order strikes on Libya (during the civil war in 2011) because there was authorization by the United Nations, which represents the interests of the international community.

For more information:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

International Law Association: http://www.ila-hq.org/

Committee on the Use of Force (and published documents): http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/1022