On Oct. 7, President Joe Biden signed a long-awaited policy tightening the rules for the CIA and Pentagon to conduct drone strikes outside of traditional war zones. The new policy requires the president’s approval before a lethal drone strike or commando raid can be launched.
The policy focuses on countries that are not conventional war zones, including Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan, but where the United States continues to carry out counterterrorism strikes. It signals that the U.S. will limit drone strikes, which have been criticized for killing civilians. However, it allows the president to waive certain requirements of the new policy at his discretion.
Mary Ellen O’Connell, the University of Notre Dame’s Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution in the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, is a longtime outspoken critic of drone strikes, calling them a grave violation of international law. […]
Explain President Biden’s new policy on counterterrorism and your thoughts on it.
We do not know exactly what the policy is because much of it is classified. That fact alone should concern us. Solid, lawful policies are public. For example, NATO’s central policy is that an attack on one member state will be treated as an attack on all. NATO’s policy is fully in compliance with international law. There is no need to hide it.
From the hints about the new policy in the media, it is indeed unlawful because it continues to permit drone-launched missile attacks beyond areas of armed conflict hostilities. President Biden will apparently authorize some strikes, which may cut back on the number of unlawful attacks. That is, of course, a good thing, but no individual national leader can legalize what global law renders unlawful. The law requires an end to drone strikes outside combat zones.
You have long been a critic of U.S.-authorized drone strikes in countries including Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen. Why do you consider them to be illegal?
International law prohibits the use of armed force unless authorized by the United Nations Security Council or when needed in self-defense to an occurring armed attack. These principles are found in the U.N. Charter. They are being cited every day against Russia and in support of Ukraine. Yet, since 2002, the U.S. has been violating them when drones are used to attack terrorist suspects in the territory of a country that has not attacked the U.S.
The Obama administration tried to carve out a new legal right to use force to legalize drone strikes. This is not possible in international law, but the Biden administration is continuing to cite the purported rule, which holds that when a sovereign state is “unwilling or unable” to assist the U.S. with respect to terrorist suspects, the U.S. has legal justification to attack with military force. The attempt defies common sense, let alone legal sense. How could one country have the right to use force against another on the basis of subjective assessment of counterterrorism efforts? President Biden would be the first to reject any attempt by Russia or China to assert such a rule. International law is universal. It applies equally to Russia, China and the U.S. Läs artikel