Drones, Targeted Killings, and the Limitations of International Law

Abstract

The debate about drones has largely taken place on a legal terrain with various politicians, lawyers, and activists all seeking to establish whether or not targeted killings are legal under the existing framework of international law. In particular, they have raised concerns about the geographical and temporal scope of the “war on terror,” the legal status of those being targeted and whether or not these strikes can be considered discriminate, proportionate, and necessary. The aim of this article is not to settle these legal questions once and for all but to think about the limitations of framing the use of drones as a legal issue rather than an ethical, moral, or political concern. I will argue that the emphasis on international law distracts attention away from the horrors of war by masking the pain and suffering that is caused in favor of technical debates about the application of particular legal codes. Drawing on the work of Judith Butler, Adriana Cavarero, and Elaine Scarry, I will argue that we need to turn our attention back to the embodied experiences of those affected.

The Psychosocial Effects of Drone Violence: Social Isolation, Self‐Objectification, and Depoliticization

“…Government and military spokespeople in these countries refer to drones as precise weapons that manage to accurately identify and kill insurgents while leaving civilians in targeted areas largely unscathed. However, research from nongovernment organizations (NGOs), independent monitoring groups, journalists, and academics has challenged this official narrative, revealing that drone violence has inflicted significantly greater harm on civilians than official statements by government and military spokespeople would lead their citizens to believe (Amnesty International, ; Benjamin, ; Enemark, ; Feroz, , ; Gregory, ; Open Society Foundations, ; Reprieve, , ; Shaw, ; Shaw & Akhter, ; Stanford Law School/NYU School of Law, ; Wilcox, ; Woods, , ). These harms are both physical and psychosocial and go largely unacknowledged by U.S.‐led coalition governments and military officials.…”

“…International Humanitarian Law, and the proportionality principle, cannot be fixed by merely adding psychological harms to the equation. As critical scholars (Gregory, ; Kennedy, ; Weizman, ) have argued, international law often enables, rather than constrains, violence in war—giving militaries a respectable language with which to justify their actions. The proportionality principle requires the “gruesome” quantification of lives and livelihoods that cannot and should not be quantified nor weighed up against military advantage (Weizman, , p. 13).…”

Assembling Israeli drone warfare: Loitering surveillance and operational sustainability

“…This literature primarily examines the strategic, technological and legal, as well as ethical aspects of the US UCAV programme and its deployment in the war on terror, often focusing on targeted killings (e.g. Chamayou, 2015;Franke, 2013;Grayson, 2016;Gregory, 2015;Hazelton, 2017;Kreuzer, 2017;Rogers and Hill, 2014;Shaw, 2017;Wilcox, 2017). This article shifts the focus to the Israeli UAV programme.…”

Introduction to the Special Section: The Autonomisation of Weapons Systems: Challenges to International Relations

“…Research on drones as novel security instruments has produced important insights into the ethical, legal, social, and political consequences and implications of their deployment (Cavallaro et al, 2012;Sauer and Sch€ ornig, 2012;Gregory, 2015;Warren and Bode, 2014;Casey-Maslen, 2012;Schwarz, 2016;Chamayou, 2015). The US-lead escalation of 'drone-warfare' , facilitated by the introduction of increasingly sophisticated, remotely-controlled weapons systems, has become one of the most visible outcomes of this ongoing reconceptualization of interventionism and has not only gained significant academic but also political and public attention.…”

“…The US-lead escalation of 'drone-warfare' , facilitated by the introduction of increasingly sophisticated, remotely-controlled weapons systems, has become one of the most visible outcomes of this ongoing reconceptualization of interventionism and has not only gained significant academic but also political and public attention. Research on drones as novel security instruments has produced important insights into the ethical, legal, social, and political consequences and implications of their deployment (Cavallaro et al, 2012;Sauer and Sch€ ornig, 2012;Gregory, 2015;Warren and Bode, 2014;Casey-Maslen, 2012;Schwarz, 2016;Chamayou, 2015).…”