Does anyone know of any good sources? [For information regarding the legal status of drone attacks]
.........
Here's a start.
The Illegality of Drones
Dawn.com
By Dr Tariq Hassan
Members of the United Nations are categorically required by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.
Yet, the United States, a founding member of the UN, has in its relations with Pakistan used both with impunity.
The missile attacks by the drones in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are not only continuing as a sad legacy of the Bush era, they seem to be increasing under the current Obama administration. Being of the same vintage as the writer — from Harvard Law School — and a product of international law professors like Louis B. Sohn who was a great proponent of the UN, one had expected President Obama to have more respect for international law and institutions. This expectation, though grounded in the youthful idealism instilled by Professor Sohn, was witnessed in President Obama’s early pronouncements on the closure of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.
Having earned tremendous respect among international lawyers for his principled stand on Guantanamo Bay, President Obama seems to be faltering on the issue of US drone attacks in Pakistan. Besides their manifest illegality, the drone attacks are unjust since they cause civilian casualties. Even though the drone attacks are intended to kill suspected militants, the US acknowledges the fact that they cause ‘collateral damage’.
Thousands of people have fled their homes in the tribal areas to escape the indiscriminate and unwarranted attacks and have become refugees in their own country. The number of these internally displaced persons is increasing by the day and the situation is fast becoming unmanageable and doing little to gain the support of the people for the so-called war on terror.
The US does not have any legal right to launch missile attacks on Pakistan through drones or otherwise. Under international law, it is only entitled to self-defence pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter which preserves ‘the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations’. This limited use of force under Article 51 is an exception to the general prohibition prescribed by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
The language of Article 51 does not allow pre-emptive attacks. As a matter of established practice, acts of self-defence are legitimate only if they meet certain preconditions. Accordingly, the use of force in self-defence is permitted only (i) in case of necessity, where there is an attack and the use of force is necessary to repel it and is defensive in nature; and (ii) to the extent that the defensive use of force is proportionate to the attack and not punitive in nature. Although some states assert the right of pre-emptive self-defence in order to avert attacks, where there is threat of imminent attack there is generally no consensus among international scholars.
The US drone attacks fail on all counts. They are not carried out to repel an attack and instead constitute preemptive strikes which not only use disproportionate but also deceptive force against suspected militants and innocent civilians.
[...]
full at --
orig url -
shortened url -
.d.