Dr. Amit Anand & Preethi Lolaksha Nagaveni, Lancaster University, UK
ABSTRACT
Since the 9/11 attacks, the focus of U.S. counterterrorism operations has slowly shifted from the battlefields of Afghanistan to those in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The use of armed drones in these regions to target members of al-Qaeda and its associate forces has engendered an intensive debate in international law. The U.S. drone policy claims to abide by the international rules on targeting (while drone operations in remote territories of the world results in countless civilian casualties). Considering increasing number of civilian casualties, combatant-civilian divide and accountability vis-a-vis carrying out drone operations, the approach undertaken by U.S. policy makers, presumably, has misinterpreted existing laws applicable to the conduct of hostilities. The policy lacks clarity on the applicable legal regime as well as restraints to prevent any misuse of the drone technology leading to a popular view that there has been an unabated use of armed drones by the U.S. administration without transparency or accountability.
Despite the vast literature on the 9/11 attacks and the discussion among scholars on the use of drones by the U.S., the compatibility between the rules on targeting under international humanitarian law and the drone operations conducted by U.S., remains as an area which is less examined under international law. Therefore, in view of issues like, civilian casualities, collateral damage, violation of international humanitarian law principles that pose a challenge to the legality of drone operations, it is necessary to examine whether or not the U.S targeting practices are in violation of the law of armed conflict.
Keywords: Drones, Distinction, Targeting, Proportionality and United States
