The Legality of CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan: The US Point of View

The Legality of CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan: The US Point of View

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of USA has been carrying out controversial drone strikes in Pakistan for several years now. These attacks have been the subject of much criticism from Pakistan’s top civilian leadership, and it is no surprise that the question of their legality has been raised in Pakistan. As a matter of fact, the Peshawar High Court in Pakistan has already declared drones as a blatant violation of human rights, and well as against the United Nations’ Charter. However, no action has yet been brought forward by any state against the under the International Humanitarian Law regime that governs the conduct of armed conflicts.

In a press release issued by the U.S. Department of State, the Obama Administration argues that the U.S. is in an armed conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks on American soil. Under this notion, the U.S. is, in accordance with the principles of International Humanitarian Law, allowed to use force to ensure its inherent right of self-defense. Under this pretext, the Obama Administration believes they are not violating international law by conducting drone strikes.

Many critics of drone strikes have brought forward the notion that they are violative of American laws, and are against some of the basic principles upon which the U.S. was founded. The Obama Administration, however, argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force law allows them to use all necessary and appropriate force in order to maintain the security of America. This law is still in operation today, and it serves as the primary justification for the use of drone strikes under domestic American laws.

The biggest criticism about drone strike in Pakistan has been about the legality of the means by which people are targeted. The Obama Administration has said that it targets people in foreign countries using drones only in particular circumstances on a case-to-case basis. It claims that it takes into account three factors before deciding whether a particular drone attack should occur. These are:

1. The imminence of the threat posed by those who may be targeted.

2. The sovereignty of all the states involved

3. The ability and willingness of those states to suppress the threat posed.

Some argue that the killing of people along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan is violative of the basic human right of right to due process of law. The Obama administration maintains that the concept of extrajudicial killings does not apply in cases where a state is engaged in an armed conflict, or in which it is engaging in legitimate self-defense. It contends that all drone strikes go through robust stages of planning to ensure that all international law obligations are met and that any killings are extremely precise and targeted.

The Obama administration is often accused of violating international law because it has been using unmanned aircraft to attack people along the Pak-Afghan border. The Obama Administration, however, believes that the laws of war do not place any restriction on the sophistication of technology used, so long as the applicable laws of war are not being violated. It argues that drone technology minimizes civilian loss of life, and so it is not in violation of international law.

Lastly, the Obama Administration maintains that Islamabad has privately endorsed the strategy of using drone warfare in 2009. The only responsibility on the CIA is to inform the Pakistani government of any drone attacks, concurrent to these attacks. It believes that with the consent of the Pakistani government, its drone attacks are not violative of the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Primary Source: http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm

(Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State)

View the Original article