On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, ken hanly wrote:
> Air raids are typically on the territory of a country you are at war
> with or are occupying and fighting a resistance as in Afghanistan. But
> drone attacks such as that in Yemen or Pakistan do not fit that model.
You are right that the US's use of drones to target al-Qaida types that are no concern of the country involved is on its face a massive violation of every norm of law: it's extraterritorial, and it's extra-legal.
But that's de facto, and a bit in the past. De jure, these al-Qaida types (at least nowadays) have been declared as enemies of the state by the states in which they reside, and the drone attacks are nominally permitted by those states. And that changes everything. Legally speaking, the US is "invited assistance." So the international laws that apply pertain to the relations between a central government and a resistance against it -- a field on which international law is very weak, since most of it is about relations between states and is predicated on internal non-interference.
The al-Qaida types are being harbored by -- and are usually a functional part of -- resistances whose relation to their central governments is completely typical of a long historical trend. It has always been the norm not to declare war on insurgents; there is usually great resistance to even recognizing them. And it also typical for rebels not to be a threat to the central government, but simply to dispute the central government's writ in an outlying area.
Once it becomes a matter between a central government and insurgents against it, I believe the only international laws that would apply would be the sections that have been developed out of the Geneva conventions about making reasonable conscious efforts to minimize noncombatant casualties (which applies to both sides, the attackers and the defenders, since it includes not using human shields, and thus remains endlessly disputatious).
Within that framework, I agree with Wojtek. I don't believe the drones introduce anything new. It's the same old bloodshed.
Michael