America’s Central Intelligence Agency has adopted an innovative strategy to counter the effective guerilla warfare tactics being used by militants in Northwest Pakistan. While these drone attacks have been the source of much criticism and appreciation, few have explored whether this means of combat is actually permitted under international law. A number of questions arise as a result of such an inquiry. Does the drone strikes carried about by the CIA violate Pakistan’s sovereignty? Does the CIA have privilege to carry out such attacks? Is the use of force on non-combatants permitted under international law?
Arguably the biggest criticism about drone strikes has been that they serve as a direct violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan. According to the guidelines laid out by international law, no country is allowed to carry out any attacks, by drones or otherwise, on another country’s soil. The two exceptions to this rule apply when the country being attacked has consented to it, or if the aggressor is acting in legitimate self-defense. Pakistani officials have continuously requested the United States not to independently carry out drone strikes, ruling out the possibility of consenting to these attacks.
The lack of consent has not hindered the United States government. They have continuously rested on the second exception to extra-territorial attack limitations, arguing that they must destabilize the Taliban – a group which has allegedly carried out a number of attacks on American soil. The application of self-defense in this case is contested because the Taliban are a wide range of people, and many claim that it does not warrant such a blatant violation of another nation’s sovereignty.
Drone strikes are detested by a large proportion of Pakistanis since they feel scores of collateral casualties that occur in killing a small number of alleged militants is a gross violation of international humanitarian law. This is a concern related to the legality of the kind of force that is used by the CIA. Since drones are entirely unmanned, it is difficult to ascertain who exactly is a combatant and who is a non-combatant. The Interpretative Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities has laid out that those who provide political and financial support to combatants are not necessarily combatants themselves, and they cannot be legally targeted by any force. In the use of drone technology, the CIA has completely disregarded the differences between civilians and combatants.
The CIA is a division of the government of the United States of America, but it does not come under the United States military structure. Under international humanitarian law, many doubt whether this agency has the privilege of carrying out combative offensives as if it were a military institution. Civilians who take part in such combats do not have the same kind of legal immunity that members of the military have when they are engaging in legal combat. Thus, the unprivileged combatants who operate drones can be prosecuted under Pakistani criminal law for their actions regardless of the legality of drone strikes itself.
View the Original article