Legality Of Drone Attacks In Counterterrorism Operations: The Case Of Pakistan

Abstract

The employment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also referred to as drones, in counterterrorism operation has also been a controversial issue in the international law. Although states, especially the United States, defend drone strikes as a valid force against trans-national terrorism, there is still a question about its rectitude to international legal standards, more so, those dealing with the use of force, sovereignty and human rights. Among the most impacted states, Pakistan has been the location of major drone attacks on the non-state actors in the Federally [1]Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The present paper is a critical analysis of the legality of the drone attacks applied in counterterrorism operations with specific reference to Pakistan. It evaluates the structure of international law governing such activity- that is, the UN Charter, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) - and examines state practice, judicial responses and ramifications on both sovereignty and responsibility. The paper presents an analytical and doctrinal thesis that although in some cases drone strikes do seem to conform to the goals of counterterrorism, the widespread disregard of state consent, civilian protection and the due process principles of international law negatively affects the principles of international law. Finally, the paper highlights the importance of more explicit international standards and more effective accountability mechanisms to balance the security demands and legal and moral requirements.