The Legality of US Drone Strikes in the Middle East

Questions about the legality of US drone strikes in the Middle East often elicit responses that blend complex legal considerations with political realities. This article explores the legality of these strikes under international law and the policies that govern their use.

Legality According to Who?

It is a misconception that there exists a body of laws known as 'international law' that universally governs the behavior of nations. The reality is that all international law consists of treaties and agreements between countries. There is no international law enforcement agency to enforce these laws.

Focus on the Treaty of the Hague

Some argue that drone strikes are illegal because certain international treaties require that such targets be brought to trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague rather than being assassinated unilaterally. However, the US has consistently chosen to ignore these treaties.

Context of Targeted Operations

Not all drone strikes are considered illegal. For instance, the use of drones in countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Turkey, and Pakistan is often sanctioned within the framework of pre-existing authorizations. These authorizations can include the setting up of no-fly zones, or the explicit permission granted by the local government.

President Obama's Legacy

To gain a more comprehensive understanding, we should consider the period under President Obama. Despite his administration's record of drone strikes, the legality of these actions has remained a subject of debate. It would be instructive to examine the extrajudicial killings ordered by the Obama administration to better understand the criteria and justification for such actions.

Subsequent Legal Considerations

When evaluating the legality of US drone strikes, one must consider the following factors:

The authorization by local governments in countries where strikes occur. The compliance or non-compliance with international treaties and agreements. The necessity and proportionality of the strikes.

For instance, the existence of an arrest team to apprehend a target, as was the case with Osama Bin Laden, is seen as a more lawful approach compared to a direct hit without a trial.

Recent Developments

Today, the legality of such strikes often hinges on the political circumstances and the discretion of the commander-in-chief. The use of drones without formal judicial processes, as seen in many Middle Eastern operations, can be scrutinized based on the principles of proportionality and necessity.

The Future of Drone Use

As technology evolves and the geopolitical landscape changes, the legal framework governing drone strikes will also evolve. It is crucial for the international community to establish clearer guidelines and enforceable standards to ensure that the use of drones aligns with the principles of international law and human rights.

Conclusion

The legality of US drone strikes in the Middle East is a multifaceted issue that involves complex legal, political, and ethical considerations. While the US has often operated under the principle of self-determination in these matters, the broader international community continues to seek a more comprehensive and enforceable legal framework to govern such operations.

Key Takeaways

There is no universal 'international law' that governs the behavior of nations. Drone strikes are most often considered legal when authorized by local governments in countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Turkey, and Pakistan. The legality of US drone strikes is closely tied to its adherence to international treaties and the principles of proportionality and necessity.