Rise of the drones: A study on the legality of drone targeted killings of suspected terrorists
In het oog van de drone
In haar boek “Gaza op mijn hoofd” schrijft Inge Neefs, "Boven ons hangt er nu zo'n gigantische stalen wesp: een drone, een onbemand vliegtuig dat van op afstand bestuurd wordt, via een console, ergens in Tel Aviv waarschijnlijk. (...) Het enige wat nu telt is de dodelijkheid, de onvoorspelbaarheid van dat massief tuig boven ons. Dat monster wekt oer angsten op, een gevoel van absolute kwetsbaarheid." Deze gevoelens van angst en kwetsbaarheid zijn tegenwoordig de realiteit voor veel mensen. Sla de krant open, kijk naar het nieuws of op sociale media en je komt zeker verhalen tegen over dit nieuwe wapen.
Onze samenleving is drastisch veranderd na de gebeurtenissen van 11 september. Meer dan een decennia lang is de wereld al in de greep van “de oorlog tegen terrorisme”. Door de internationale dreiging die uitgaat van terroristische groeperingen evolueren de middelen van oorlogsvoering aan een razend snel tempo. Ook drones passen daarin. Ze lijken een oplossing uit de hemel om onzichtbare vijanden te bestrijden met onzichtbare wapens.
Een drone is een onbemand luchtvaartuig, soms bestuurd van op honderden kilometers afstand, dat zowel voor burgerlijke als militaire doeleinden kan ingezet worden. Een militaire drone kan een doelwit uren- of dagenlang gade slaan om het dan op het meest geschikte moment en met chirurgische precisie uit te schakelen. Zo worden burgerslachtoffers en ook eigen militaire verliezen tot een minimum beperkt. Het is dan ook niet verwonderlijk dat dit hoogtechnologische wapen hetgene is dat elk land wil hebben.
Deze nieuwe, grotendeels onzichtbare manier van oorlogsvoering, voornamelijk door Israël en de VS beoefend in hun strijd tegen terrorisme, heeft zijn schaduwkanten. Reduceren drones niet oorlogsvoering tot een Playstation spel maar dan wel met echt menselijk leed? Wordt niet de hele wereld door de vervagende staatsgrenzen een virtueel strijdtoneel onder een quasi-permanente staat van oorlog? Zijn de traditionele oorlogsconventies nog in staat om deze nieuwe manier van oorlogsvoering te reguleren? Wie draagt de verantwoordelijkheid indien een drone aanval fout afloopt? Er wordt een onzichtbare oorlog gevoerd vanuit de lucht die gelegitimeerd wordt als terrorismebestrijding en die de traditionele regels van oorlogsvoering in vraag stelt.
Het gebruik van drones tast de juridische grenzen af van de rechtsstaat. Het recht op leven, één van de kernrechten in humanitair recht en mensenrechten, komt hierdoor onder druk te staan. De VS deinst er niet voor terug om deze grenzen ruim in zijn voordeel te interpreteren. Zo beschouwt de VS mannen van militaire leeftijd in gebieden met gevaar voor terroristische activiteiten, als legitieme doelwitten. Dit criterium is arbitrair en vatbaar voor fouten en misbruik. Burgerlijke slachtoffers worden zelden erkend door de VS en Israël en slechts uitzonderlijk wordt er verantwoordelijkheid opgenomen voor de dood van deze mensen. De gevolgen voor het dagelijkse leven en de psychische gezondheid van mensen die dag in dag uit onder voortdurende vrees voor nieuwe drone aanslagen leven is niet te onderschatten.
In het recente conflict in Gaza heeft Israël op grote schaal drones ingezet. Zoals de VS hanteert ook Israël een ruime omschrijving van wat een legitiem doelwit is. Israël beweert de rechten van burgers te handhaven door voorafgaandelijk waarschuwingsschoten af te vuren op het gebouw dat ze kort daarna met drones willen bombarderen. Aanwezigen krijgen luttele minuten de tijd om het gebouw te verlaten. Indien ze toch te laat zijn en omkomen bij de drone aanslag worden ze niet langer beschouwd als burgers maar als personen die deelnemen aan het gewapend conflict. Juridisch wil dat zeggen dat hun dood gewettigd is. Het is maar de vraag of dit overeenstemt met het internationaal recht en of Israël niet het recht manipuleert uit eigen belang.
Naast de VS en Israël zien ook andere landende voordelen in van het gebruik van drones. Zo hebben recent zeven Europese landen, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Italië, Spanje, Nederland, Griekenland en Polen, een ‘club’ gevormd om vanaf 2020 samen militaire drones te produceren. Drones zijn een opkomende miljardenindustrie geworden.
Tijdens de 25ste sessie van de Mensenrechtenraad van de Verenigde Naties in maart 2014 heeft de speciaal VN-rapporteur Ben Emmerson zijn rapport over drones voorgesteld. De Mensenrechtenraad heeft daarbij een resolutie over militaire drones aangenomen waarbij het bij landen aandringt om hun verplichtingen onder internationaal recht te eerbiedigen. Dit toont de bezorgdheid van de internationale gemeenschap omtrent de wettigheid van drone aanslagen en de noodzaak voor het bereiken van een consensus over een aantal belangrijke juridische kwesties. Drones hebben gezorgd voor juridische grijze zones die de grenzen aftasten van de rechtsstaat en de internationale rechtsorde. Dat moet in de gaten gehouden worden.
Eén van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen zijn de zogenaamde ‘killer robots’. Dit wapen wordt op voorhand geprogrammeerd om zonder menselijk ingrijpen doelwitten uit te kiezen en te neutraliseren. Het gebruik van drones zorgt al voor juridische en ethische bezwaren, maar deze killer robots gaan nog een stapje verder. De juridische en ethische complexiteiten die er al zijn worden hierdoor nog een trapje hoger gezet. Een groep NGO’s, met onder andere Human Rights Watch, lanceerden in 2013 ‘The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots’. Hun doel is om preventief dit soort van wapens te verbieden, wat eerder niet het geval was bij drones.
Hoe zal oorlogsvoering en terrorismebestrijding zich verder ontwikkelen? Is de wereld opgewassen tegen de internationale dreiging die uitgaat van terroristische groeperingen als de Islamitische Staat en kunnen drones een onderdeel vormen van de bestrijding hier tegen? Drones zullen in de toekomst ook door steeds meer landen gebruikt worden, maar wat als de drone technologie in de foute handen terechtkomt? Het idee dat terroristen met drones de hele wereld in handbereik hebben en kunnen toeslaan waar, wanneer en zonder zichzelf in gevaar te brengen, is een angst die niet uit de lucht gegrepen is. Het is noodzakelijk om op een kordate en krachtige manier terreur tegen te gaan. Van uiterste belang is wel dat terreurbestrijding niet na verloop van tijd in zijn eigen vijand verandert. Enkel een democratische samenleving en een sterke rechtsstaat kunnen ervoor zorgen dat dit niet gebeurt.
Bibliografie
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
· Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977.
· Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977.
· African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 27 June 1981.
· American Convention on Human Rights of 22 November 1969.
· Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union of 7 December 2000.
· Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950.
· Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.
· Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949.
· Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949.
· Geneva Convention III relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.
· Geneva Convention IV relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949.
· Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907.
· International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 12 January 1998, www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/conventions/Conv11.pdf.
· International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
· Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998.
· Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948.
· Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.
U.N. DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS
· Alston, P., Interim Report to the General Assembly on the Worldwide Situation in regard to Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, UN Doc. A/61/311 (2006), 21 p.
· Alston, P., Study on Targeted Killings, UN Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 (2010), 29 p.
· Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990.
· Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by General Assembly Resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979.
· Emmerson, B., Interim Report to the General Assembly on the Use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft in Counter-terrorism Operations, UN Doc. A/68/389 (2013), 24 p.
· Emmerson, B., Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/59 (2014), 20 p.
· Fifteenth report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1526 (2004), S/2014/41.
· Heyns, C., Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, UN Doc. A/68/382 (2013), 24 p.
· Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 45/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/15/D/45/1979 (1982).
· Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 24 on Issues Relating to the Reservations Made Upon Ratification or Accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6 (1994).
· Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29 on States of Emergency, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev1/Add11 (2001)
· Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 on The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed On State Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004).
· Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6 on The Right to Life, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 (1982).
· Human Rights Committee, Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Communication No. 52/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 (1984).
· Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/L.32 (2014), www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/25/L.32.
· Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, www.un.org/law/terrorism/.
· Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Annual Report: Outcome of the Expert Consultation on the Issue of Protecting the Human Rights of Civilians in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/HRC/11/31 (2009), 17 p.
· Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism, Fact Sheet No. 32, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf, 72 p.
· The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law adopted by GA Res. 61/106, UN Doc. A/RES/61/106 (2006).
· U.N. Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions recommended by Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989, para. 1, www.unrol.org/files/PRINCI~2.PDF.
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
· The Council of the European Union, Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on Combating Terrorism, 2002/475/JHA, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002F0475:20081209:EN:PDF.
CASE LAW
· ECHR, Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, 2011.
· ECHR, Al-saadoon and Mufdhi v. UK, 2009.
· ECHR, Al-Skeini and others v. The United Kingdom, 2011.
· ECHR, Bankovic v. Belgium, 2000.
· ECHR, Issa v. Turkey, 2004.
· ECHR, McCann and others v. The United Kingdom, 1995
· ECHR, Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, 2005.
· HCJ, Pub. Comm. Against Torture in Isr. v. Gov’t of Isr., No. 769/02 (11 December 2005).
· IACHR, Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Pena y Pablo Morales v. Republic of Cuba, Report No. 89/99, Case 11.589 (29 September 1999).
· IACHR, Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina, Report No. 55/97, OESA/Ser.L./V./II.95 Doc. 7 Rev. 271 (18 November 1997).
· IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, IACHR Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 Rev 1 Corr. (22 October 2002).
· IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, IACHR Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 9 Rev. 1 (26 February 1999).
· ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004.
· ICJ, Nicaragua v. United States of America, ICJ Reports 1986.
· ICJ, The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996.
· ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-94-4-T (2 September 1998).
· ICTR, Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-A (27 January 2000).
· ICTY, Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-T (5 December 2003).
· ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al, Case No. IT-96-23-T (22 February 2001).
· ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, Case No. IT-95-16-T (14 January 2000).
· ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR 72 (2 October 1995).
· ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-A, (15 July 1999).
· Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Case No. STL-11-01/1 (16 February 2011).
· U.S. Supreme Court, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2008, 548 U.S 557 (2006).
BOOKS
· Dinstein, Y., The Conduct Of Hostilities Under The Law Of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, 296 p.
· Henchaerts, J. and Doswald-Beck, L., Customary International Humanitarian Law: Volume I: Rules, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, 629 p.
· HPCR, Commentary on the HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare, Harvard University, 2010, http://ihlresearch.org/amw/Commentary%20on%20the%20HPCR%20Manual.pdf, 348 p.
· HPCR, HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and missile Warfare, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard University, 2009, www.ihlresearch.org/amw/manual/, 56 p.
· ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion Of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, May 2009, available at www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf, 85 p.
· Lubell, N., Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, 320 p.
· Meltzer, N., Targeted Killings in International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, 524 p.
· Moeckli, D., Shah, S., Sivakumaran, S. and Harris, D., International Human Rights Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, 670.
· Otto, R., Targeted Killings and International Law, Heidelberg, Springer, 2012, 680 p.
· Pictet, P., Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field: Commentary: Volume I, Geneva, ICRC, 1952, 466 p.
· Sassòli, M., International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, 424 p.
· Solis, G. D., The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 692 p.
· Van Engeland, A., Civilian or Combatant? : A Challenge for the 21st Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, 192 p.
CHAPTERS IN BOOKS
· Akande, D., “Classification of Conflicts: Relevant Legal Concepts”, in E. Wilmshurst (ed.), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, Chapter 3, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132573, 68 p.
· Gordon. S., “Civilian Protection- What’s Left of the Norm”, in S. Perrigo & J. Whitman (eds), The Geneva Conventions under Assault, London, Pluto Press, 2010, 74-99.
· Hampson, F., “The Principle of Proportionality in the Law of Armed Conflict”, in S. Perrigo & J. Whitman (eds), The Geneva Conventions under Assault, London, Pluto Press, 2010, 42-74.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
· Alston, P., ”Lethal Robotic Technologies: The Implications for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law”, J.L. Inf. & Sci. 2011, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 35-60.
· Bachmann, S. and Haeussler, U., “Targeted Killing as a Means of Asymmetrical Warfare: A Provocative View and Invitation to Debate”, Law, Crime & History 2011, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 9-15.
· Beard, J. M., ”Law and War in the Virtual Era”, Am. J. Int’l L. 2009, 409-445.
· Ben-Naftali, O. and Michaeli, K., “We Must Not Make a Scarecrow of the Law: A Legal Analysis of the Israeli Policy of Targeted Killings”, Cornell Int’l L.J. 2003, Vol. 36, 233-292.
· Benson, K., ”Kill ’em and Sort It out Later: Signature Drone Strikes and International Humanitarian Law”, Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 2014, Vol. 27, Issue 1, 17-51.
· Blank, L. and Guiora, A., ”Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Operationalizing the Law of Armed Conflicts in New Warfare”, Harv. Nat’l Sec. J. 2010, Vol. 1, 45-85.
· Blank, L. R., “After ‘Top Gun’: How Drone Strikes Impact The Law of War”, U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 2012, Vol. 33, 675-718.
· Boothby, W. H., “Direct Participation in Hostilities – A Discussion of the ICRC Interpretative Guidance”, JIHLS 2010, 143-164.
· Breger, M. J. and Stern, M. D., “Symposium on Reexamining the Law of War: Introduction to the Symposium on Reexamining the Law of War”, Cath. U. L. Rev. 2007, 745-758.
· Brooks, R. E., “War Everywhere: Rights, National Security Law, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of Terror”, U. Pa. L. Rev. 2004, Vol. 153, 675-761.
· Brust, R., “Uneasy Targets: How Justifying the Killing of Terrorists Has Become a Major Policy Debate”, A.B.A. J. 2012, Vol. 98, Issue 4, 50-55.
· Chengeta, T., Are U.S. Drone Targeted Killings Within The Confines of The Law?, Dissertation University of Pretoria, 2011, 93 p.
· Chesney, R. M., ”Beyond the Battlefield, Beyond Al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal Architecture of Counterterrorism”, Mich. L. Rev. 2013, Vol. 112, Issue 2, 163-224.
· Christensen, E., “The dilemma of direct participation in hostilities”, J. of Transnational Law & Policy 2010, 281-309.
· Droege, C., “The Interplay Between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict”, Isr. L. Rev. 2007, Vol. 40, No. 2, 310-355.
· Droege, C., ”Elective Affinities? Human Rights and Humanitarian Law”, Int’l Rev. of the Red Cross 2008, Vol. 90, No. 871, 501-548.
· Gehring, R., “Loss of civilian protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I”, Mil. L. & L. War Rev. 1980, 9-48.
· Goodman, R. and Jinks, D., “ICRC Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law: An Introduction to the Forum”, N.Y.U. J. Int’L L. & Pol. 2010, Vol. 42, Issue 3, 637-640.
· Hagger, M. and McCormack, T., ”Regulating the Use of Unmanned Combat Vehicles: Are General Principles of International Humanitarian Law Sufficient”, JLIS 2011, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 74-99.
· Hampson, F. J., “Direct Participation in Hostilities and the Interoperability of the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law”, Int’l L. Stud. Ser. US Naval War Col. 2011, Vol. 87, 187-213.
· Hampson, F. J., ”The Relationship Between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law from the Perspective of a Human Rights Treaty Body”, Int’l Rev. Of the red Cross 2008, Vol. 90, No. 871, 549-572.
· Harwood, J. C., ”Knock, Knock; Who’s There? Announcing Targeted Killings Procedures and the Law of Armed Conflict”, Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 2012, Vol. 40, Issue 1, 1-28.
· Hathaway, O. A., Crootof, R., Levitz, P. and Nix, H., “Which Law Governs During Armed Conflict – The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law”, Minn. L. Rev. 2012, Vol. 96, Issue 6, 1883-1944.
· Hathaway, O. A., Crootof, R., Levitz, P., Nix, H., Perdue, W., Purvis, C. and Spiegel, J., “The Relationship Between International Humanitarian law and Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict”, Minn. L. Rev. 2012, 1883-1944.
· Hays Parks, W., “Air War and the Law of War”, A.F. L. Rev. 1990, 1-226.
· Heller, K. J., ”One Hell of a Killing machine: Signature Strikes and International Law”, JICJ 2013, 89-119.
· Kretzmer, D., ”Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-judicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defence?”, EJIL 2005, 171-212.
· Lewis, M. L., “Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield”, Tex. Int’l L.J. 2012, 293-314.
· May, L., ”Targeted Killings and Proportionality in Law: Two Models”, JICJ 2013, 47-64.
· McDonnell, T. M., “Sow What You Reap: Using Predator and Reaper Drones to Carry Out Assassinations or Targeted Killings of Suspected Islamic Terrorists”, The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 2012, Vol. 44, Issue 2, 243-316.
· Melzer, N., “Keeping the Balance between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC's Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities”, N.Y.U. J. Int’L L. & Pol. 2010, Vol. 42, Issue 3, 831-916.
· Miko, S., ”Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the European Convention for Human Rights”, B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 2012, Vol. 35, Issue 3, Article 5, 63-79.
· Ohlin, J. D., “Duty to Capture”, Minn. L. Rev. 2013, 1268-1342.
· Ohlin, J. D., “Is Jus in Bello in Crisis?”, JICJ 2013, 27-45.
· Orakhelashvili, A., “The Interaction between Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Fragmentation, Conflict, Parallelism, or Convergence?”, EJIL 2008, Vol. 19, 161-182.
· Orr, A. C., “Unmanned, Unprecedented, and Unresolved: The Status of American Drone Strikes in Pakistan Under International Law”, Cornell Int’l L.J. 2011, Vol. 44, 730-752.
· Rogers, A. P. V., “Direct Participation in Hostilities: Some personal Reflections”, Mil. L. & L. War Rev. 2009, Vol. 48, Issues 1 and 2, 143-164.
· Rona, G., “International Law Under Fire: Interesting Times For International Humanitarian Law: Challenges from the War on Terror”, Fletcher F. World Aff. 2003, Vol. 27, Issue 2, 55-74.
· Saul, B., “Attempts to Define ‘Terrorism’ in International Law”, NILR 2005, Vol. 52, Issue 1, 57-83.
· Schmitt, M. N., “Drone Attacks Under the Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello: Clearing the 'Fog of Law'“, Y.B. Int'l Humanitarian L. 2010, 311-326.
· Schmitt, M. N., “The Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis”, Harvard NSJ 2010, Vol. 1, 5-44.
· Schmitt, M. N., ”Precision Attack and International Humanitarian Law”, Int’l Rev. Red Cross 2005, Vol. 87, No. 859, 445-466.
· Shamash, H. E., ”How Much is Too Much - An Examination of the Principle of Jus in Bello Proportionality”, IDF L.R. 2005-2006, 103-148.
· Sharkey, N., ”Death Strikes from the Sky: The Calculus of Proportionality”, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 2009, 16-19.
· Sharky, N., ”Automating Warfare: Lessons Learned from the Drones”, J.L. Inf. & Sci. 2011, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 140-154.
· Sterio, M., “The United States’ Use of Drones in the War on Terror: The (Il)legality of Targeted Killings under International Law”, Case W. Res. J. Int’l. 2012, Vol. 45, 197-214.
· Strawser, B. J., “Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles”, J. of Military Ethics 2010, 342-368.
· Taylor, R. S., “Capture versus Kill Debate: Is the Principle of Humanity Now Part of the Targeting Analysis When Attacking Civilians Who are Directly Participating in Hostilities”, Army Law. 2010, 103-111.
· Van Sliedregt, E. and Van Den Herik, L., “Introduction: The STL Interlocutory Decision on the Definition of Terrorism – Judicial Ingenuity or Radicalism?”, LJIL 2011, Vol. 24, Issue 3, 651-654.
· Ventura, L. J., “Terrorism According to the STL’s Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law”, JICJ 2011, Vol. 9, 1021-1042.
· Vogel, R. J., “Drone Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict”, Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 2010, 601-614.
· Vogel, R. J., ”Droning On: Controversy Surrounding Drone Warfare Is Not Really About Drones”, Brown J. World Aff. 2013, Vol. 19, Issue 2, 111-126.
· Wagner, M., ”Taking Humans out of the Loop: Implications for International Humanitarian Law”, J.L. Inf. & Sci. 2011, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 155-165.
· Watkin, K., “Opportunity Lost: Organized Armed Groups and The ICRC “Direct Participation In Hostilities” Interpretive Guidance”, N.Y.U. J. Int’L L. & Pol. 2010, Vol. 42, 641-695.
· Wuschka, S., “Use of Combat Drones in Current Conflicts – A Legal Issue or a Political Problem”, GoJIL 2011, Vol. 3, Issue 3, 891-905.
WEB ARTICLES
· Blank, L. R., “Drone Strike Casualties and the Laws of War”, Jurist 22 August 2011, http://jurist.org/forum/2011/08/laurie-blank-drone-strikes.php#.U1fuTV7lfwI.
· Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, “Targeting Operations with Drone Technology: Humanitarian Law Implications”, A Background Note for the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, 25 March 2009, www.law.columbia.edu/ipimages/Human_Rights_Institute/BackgroundNoteASILColumbia.pdf, 38 p.
· Delahunty, R. J. and Yoo, J. C., “Rewriting the Laws of War for a New Enemy”, L.A. Times 1 February 2005, http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/01/opinion/oe-yoo1.
· Drew, C., ”Military Is Awash in Data from Drones”, N.Y. Times 5 January 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/11drone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&.
· Epatko, L., ”Controversy Surrounds Increased Use of U.S. Drone Strikes”, PBS NewsHour 10 October 2011, www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/10/drone-strikes-1.html.
· Grossman, L., ”Drone Home: The Fight and Spy for America Abroad. But What Happens When Drones Return Home?”, Time 11 February 2013, http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2135132-1,00.html, 5 p.
· Human Rights Watch, “UN: Nations Agree to Address ‘Killer Robots’”, 15 November 2013, www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/15/un-nations-agree-address-killer-robots.
· ICRC, ”War and Humanitarian Law”, 29 October 2010, www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/overview-war-and-law.htm.
· Jones, S. G. and Libicki, C., “How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida”, RAND Corporation 2008, www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1.html, 225 p.
· McCloskey, M., ”The War Room: Daily Transition Between Battle, Home Takes a Toll on Drone Operators”, Stars & Stripes 9 October 2009, www.stripes.com/news/the-war-room-daily-transition-between-battle-home-takes-a-toll-on-drone-operators-1.95949#.Uzfc6NzlfwI.
· Miller, G., “Feinstein Comment on U.S. Drones Likely to Embarrass Pakistan”, L.A. Times 13 February 2009, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/13/world/fg-uspakistan13.
· Nebehay, S., ”U.N. Rights Forum Calls for Use of Armed Drones to Comply with Law”, Reuters 28 March 2014, www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/28/us-un-rights-drones-idUSBREA2R0WW20140328.
· O’Connell, M. E., “Seductive Drones: Learning from a Decade of Lethal Operations”, JLIS 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1912635, 27 p.
· Risen, J. and Johnston, D., “Bush Has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists”, N.Y. Times 15 December 2002, www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/world/threats-responses-hunt-for-al-qaeda-bush-has-widened-authority-cia-kill.html.
· Sassòli, M., “Transnational Armed Groups and International Humanitarian Law”, Occasional Paper Series, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard University 2006, Number 6, www.hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/OccasionalPaper6.pdf, 43 p.
· Serle, J., ”Countries Must Investigate Civilian Drone Deaths Claims, Says UN Investigator Ben Emmerson”, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism 12 March 2014, www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/03/12/countries-must-investigate-civilian-drone-death-claims-says-un-investigator-ben-emmerson/.
· Shane, S., ”Contrasting Reports of Drone Strikes”, N.Y. Times 11 August 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12droneside.html?_r=0.
· Shane, S., ”Debate Aside, Number of Drone Strikes Drops Sharply”, N.Y. Times 21 May 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/debate-aside-drone-strikes-drop-sharply.html?_r=0.
· Shanker, T. and Richtel, M., ”In New Military, Data Overload Can Be Deadly”, N.Y. Times 16 January 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/technology/17brain.html?pagewanted=all.
· Singer, P. W., “Military Robots and the Laws of War”, The New Atlantis 2009, www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/military-robots-and-the-laws-of-war.
· Tyson, A. S., ”Afghan Strategy Poses Tactical Tests for Marines”, Wash. Post 13 August 2009, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203198.html.
· Wallsten, P., “Geneva Convention Overhaul Considered”, L.A. Times 7 January 2005, http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/07/nation/na-geneva7.
· Wardrop, M., “Unmanned Drones could be Banned, Says Senior Judge”, The Telegraph 6 July 2009, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/5755446/Unmanned-drones-could-be-banned-says-senior-judge.html.
· Woods, C., “The Day 69 Children Died”, The Express Tribune (with the International N.Y. Times) 12 August 2011, http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/.
· X, “Flight of the Drones: Why the Future of Air Power Belongs to Unmanned Systems”, The Economist 8 October 2011, www.economist.com/node/21531433.
· X, “NOVA: Rise Of The Drones”, KPBS 15 March 2013, www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jan/22/nova-rise-drones/.
REPORTS
· Amnesty International, ”Will I be Next? US Drone Strikes in Pakistan”, October 2013, www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/asa330132013en.pdf, 74 p.
· Creech 14, “Drone: Resisting Sanitized Remote-control Death”, http://vcnv.org/drone-resisting-sanitized-remote-control-death.
· Human Rights Watch, “Losing Humanity”, 19 November 2012, www.hrw.org/reports/2012/11/19/losing-humanity-0, 49 p.
· Human Rights Watch, ”A Wedding That Became a Funeral”, 20 February 2014, www.hrw.org/reports/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral-0, 28 p.
· Human Rights Watch, ”Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda”, 22 October 2013, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/10/22/between-drone-and-al-qaeda-0, 98 p.
· Roggio, B. and Mayer, A., Charting the Data for U.S. Airstrikes in Pakistan 2004-2014, The Long War Journal, www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php.
· Stanford Law School and NYU School of Law, “Living Under Drones”, September 2012, www.livingunderdrones.org/victim-stories/.
U.S. DOCUMENTS
· Koh, H. H., Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Keynote Speech at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law on 25 March 2010, www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm.
· President B. Obama, Speech given by U.S. President Obama in May 2013 at the National Defense University, www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-barack-obama.
· President G. W. Bush, Radio Address of the U.S. President to the Nation, 29 September 2001, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010929.html.
· The White House, Memorandum of 7 February 2002, Appendix C to the Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review DOD Detention Operations, 24 August 2004, www.defense.gov/news/Aug2004/d20040824finalreport.pdf.
· The White House: Office of the Press Secretary, Fact Sheet: US Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Outside the United Stated and Areas of Active Hostilities, 23 May 2013, www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/fact-sheet-us-policy-standards-and-procedures-use-force-counterterrorism.
· U.S. Committee on Foreign Relations, Afghanistan’s Narco War: Breaking the Link Between Drug Traffickers and Insurgents, 111th Congress, First Session, S. Prt. 111-29, 2009, 31 p.
· U.S. Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 2001, www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp1_02-april2010.pdf, 487 p.
· Video, Interview with Michael Hayden, www.cnbc.com/id/100854854.
WEBSITES
· ICRC, Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, 2005, www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1.
· Interview with Noam Chomsky by Laura Flanders, available at www.mediaite.com/tv/noam-chomsky-obama-is-running-biggest-terrorist-operation-that-exists/.
