Essay Sample on Drone Strikes: A Legal Controversy

Introduction

There have been debates and legal controversies concerning drone strikes that are conducted in the United States and outside the country. Some drone strikes operations targeted the Al Qaeda agents in Yemen, parts of Pakistan and Somalia. It is an indication that since the Obama administration assumed the office, it has been utilizing the drones to carry out target strikes on terrorist groups and operatives outside Afghanistan. Kate (2016) opines that the drone program was not utilized massively during the administration of George W. Bush as the weapons system was yet to be developed. Much concern has arisen attracting the attention of the human rights advocates and other criticizers because the drone strikes are perceived to be illegal and lead to a lot of civilian causalities. The Obama administration had promised to offer data on the civilians killed and the policy guidance that is used to govern the drone strike program. The concern on the legal framework governing the drone program has never been addressed to help in providing answers to many questions surrounding use of the drone. The paper intends to discuss questions arise concerning the possible use of drones on American soil, and the possible use of drones by foreign states on enemy combatants and its citizens.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The use of armed drones to strike terrorist groups and operatives has increased over time. The administration of President Bush unleashed drones strike and the Obama administration has authorized many more. Sterio (2012) notes that after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush allowed utilization of the armed drones on the Al Qaeda forces. Therefore, two types of drones were introduced; the small drone which conducted surveillance missions and another large drone that is equipped with missiles. Tom (2016) notes that the administration has information that many civilians are killed on drone strikes. Besides the United States, other countries have acquired the technology of drones, and use it to attack terrorist operatives. The use of drones has threatened the stability of regions around the world. Therefore, concerns about the U.S target killing have raised the question of whether the operations are conducted in compliance with international law or not. Davis, McNerney & Greenberg (2016) note that the use of drone strikes, or signature strikes on suspected terrorist operatives has been criticized because, some of the targets are not lawful combatants and some are not positively identified as terrorists. Besides, there is concern that some countries might use the armed drone secretly on people not identified as terrorists with no legal foundation. Many strategic, moral, and legal questions among others have been raised seeking to gather more data on the use of a drone by the United States and other countries.

If Drone Strikes Targeting Only the Al Qaeda and its Associates Forces in Afghanistan

The first question arises on the use of drone strikes on different regions and non Al Qaeda members. George W. Bush claimed that United State was actively fighting with terror groups, while president Obama clarified that by stating that the U.S was at war with the Al Qaeda. This fight against terrorism was authorized by Congress in 2001 through the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF provided authority to the Obama administration to use drone strikes on not only the Al Qaeda, but also to conducted armed drones attached in Yemen, Somalia and other territories. Kate (2016) note that the U.S has used drone strikes on Pakistan border regions, but has not acknowledged such operations. Sterio (2012) agrees with Kate (2012) and states that the U.S approach to the utilization of the armed drone is that it can target the enemies in any part of the world. Besides, the Obama administration relied on the 2001 AUMF to attack Syria and Iraq.

There is a lot of public controversy concerning whether the drone strikes outside the Afghanistan terror territories are component of the war with Al Qaeda and its allies. The strikes take place away from active battlefields. The government of the United States describes them as counterterrorism operations. Kate (2016) suggests that the Obama administration drone strikes operations since 2009 were part of the war against Al Qaeda and its allies in compliance with the 2001 AUMF. Therefore, the administrations believed that the attacks were justified, but that resulted in a lot of criticisms because of the massive drone strikes on people not identified to be Al Qaeda operatives. According to Sterio (2012), president Obama had designated that Afghanistan was the combat zone for the drone strike, but the attacked were experienced in other places. The justification for this is that Al Qaeda forces were well connected to other regions and therefore, drones can target them anywhere in the world. The international communities have questioned the U.S expansive geographical utilization of drones. Sterio (2012) notes that the 9/11 attack made the war against terrorists a global war and therefore, the geographic constraints were no more. The administration has defended its operations by claiming that the drone program is consistent and conforms to international law (Hajjar, 2019). The legality of the use of a drone by the United States has been questioned especially because it doesn't just involve the killing of Al Qaeda members alone, it has lead to the death of U.S citizens like the one killed in the Anwar al-Awiaki strike.

When International Humanitarian Law Apply on the Use of Drone

The next question raises on the use of the drone is about the application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) on drone striking. The IHL is concerned about the acceptable use of force that involves armed conflicts among the states, nation-states and non-state organizations like Al Qaeda. The IHL aims at ensuring that the use of the armed drone complies with the laws. Davis, McNerney & Greenberg (2016) note that based on the IHL, drones are not accounted to be inherently indiscriminate, hence they are not considered to be different from weapons that are released from helicopters. Therefore, drones might not be unlawful themselves but, their utilization is subject to the IHL.

Some of the drones are not used for armed conflict purposes. For example, surveillance drones are used for civilian purposes like detecting fire and saving lives. Some are used to collect data for relief people working on regions affected by natural disasters. Some of the military drones are not armed but they are used for surveillance, information transmission about the location of the targets. The current debate has involved the use of an armed drone for combat operations (Hajjar, 2019). The advocates for drone use suggest that drone has reduced the casualties and minimized the destruction. This has been criticized because drone attacks have lead to the killing and injuring of civilians.

Drones are not mentioned on the legal instruments of IHL and other weapon treaties. Despite that, the utilization of all weapon systems that include armed drones on armed conflict is a subject of rule of IHL. Therefore, on the occasion of the use of drones, the U.S and other countries must distinguish combatants from civilians and military objectives from civilian objectives. All feasible precautions must be taken to spare civilians and infrastructure (Hajjar, 2019). Besides, all attacks must be suspended if civilians might be injured. Just like IHL's statement that no weapon should carry biological agents, drones should not be used in that manner too. Based on the IHL, the weapon that can carry out attacks precisely, and prevent loss of civilians' lives or minimize the damages and injuries to the civilians should be more preferred over the ones that do not (Enemark, 2019). Davis, McNerney & Greenberg (2016) and (Keele, 2019) suggest that armed drones can provide these advantages depending on the circumstances. Therefore, this issue is an ongoing debate because there is a lack of clear information on the effect that drone strikes have. The law of war allows an attack on the military objectives and the combatants. The people who play on military roles like civilians should be protected contrary to what has been observed in Yemen where the IHL has been violated. The U.S uses drones even in a situation where it is not a war situation with other countries thus disregarding the law.

The answer to the question of whether the use of a drone is lawful depends on which body of law is applied in every situation. The body of law in the application when intending to use a drone defines which rules to be used. Some drones cause physical harm to civilians while others case psychological impacts (Enemark, 2019). There are some mental health consequences of the presence of drones in the skies to the people in the regions below. Therefore, in some situations, drones violate the IHL just like any other weapon and that results in debates.

What It Mean If other Countries Start Drone Programs like United States

The question about other countries starting their drone programs has been emphasized a lot when it comes to the issue of the use of drones. The United States is the pioneers of the drone programs, but other countries not allied to the U.S like Russia can send a drone to Georgia and claim that Chenchen terrorists are hiding there. Besides, they can say that they have no other way to kill the terrorist but just to use the drone weapon. Scott Shane wrote in the New York Times that such occasions will create a lot of controversies because the U.S administration will have to admit. After all, other countries will be doing exactly what the U.S has been doing. As a result of this concern, the U.S administration is in the frontline in ensures that rules are governing the use of armed drones. The U.S has also created awareness of the legal framework for the legality of the drone program.

Targeted by the Armed Drones

Another question on the topic of the use of the drones is concerning the targets. It intends to provide answers to who can be targeted by the drones, and at which circumstances are the drones directed to a particular individual. The answer to this question depends on the nature of the conflict that the U.S is fighting with the Al Qaeda. Therefore, when U.S is in global armed conflict with the terror group and the law of war is in applied, the right and lawful combatants are targeted. The targeting of the lawful combatants can be suspended if they surrender and are declared hor de combat.

The Geneva Conventions defines the lawful combatant as a person linked to armed forces of a party to a conflict. Therefore, Article 4 of the Geneva Convention (Third) describes a combatant as either the member of the militia, or state armed forces, and they distinguish themselves by use of uniforms, have weapons and they conduct their actions in compliance with the customs of the war. Members of the Al Qaeda terror group can only be targets at the circumstances where they are eligible as lawful combatants (Keele, 2019). If they do not meet the standards, they are civilians and should be protected from the drone strikes. Therefore, with the strict analysis of the Geneva Convention, there is a perception that some Al Qaeda members have no distinctive sign like uniform and do not carry arms openly, and have no features of true soldiers thus, they are civilians. Sterio (2012) and Mir & Cullen (2019) opine that civilians can also be targets if they are direct participants of hostilities as described by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Based on ICRC, a civilian loses protection from attack if they directly participant in a hostile act. That...