1 / 13

The Legitimacy of Drone Strikes in the World Today

MIDN 1/C Nick Richadrson. MIDN 1/C Michael Scaplehorn. MIDN 1/C Benton Roe. MIDN 1/C Larry Peterson. The Legitimacy of Drone Strikes in the World Today. Background.

sabine
Download Presentation

The Legitimacy of Drone Strikes in the World Today

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MIDN 1/C Nick Richadrson MIDN 1/C Michael Scaplehorn MIDN 1/C Benton Roe MIDN 1/C Larry Peterson The Legitimacy of Drone Strikes in the World Today

  2. Background • The United States currently has an arsenal of different unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) including the RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper • UAVs with strike capability are armed with hellfire missiles • Drone strikes began in 2001 launched from Pakistan looking to eliminate key leaders in the al-Qaida organization in Afghanistan. • Similar strikes have occurred in other conflicting areas of the world including but not limited to Yemen, Somalia, and most controversially in Pakistan.

  3. Legality

  4. International Law: Given the United States has signed all of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol thereof, we are responsible for adhering to the laws and codes set forth. • 3rdGeneva Convention, Article 4: Combatant Status • According to Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention and Article 43 of the 1st General Protocol(of which the United States is a signatory), armed attacks can only be carried out against combatants. A combatant is “any member of regular armed forces, except medical and religious personnel, actively participating in a combat capacity.” The individuals against whom the targeted killings are carried out are often killed in their homes or in transit, when they are not actively participating in any sort of hostility or active militant campaign. Therefore, it is unlawful to strike these individuals when they are not acting in an overt combat capacity. • Geneva Convention Add’l Prot. I, Article 36: New Weapons • According to Article 36 of the same protocol, all new weapons used in combat must undergo an international Article 36 review by High-Contracting parties before being deployed into conflict. This is true with any weapon from the tank to the atomic bomb, and the drone is no exception to this law. The United States has deployed the drone without this • Geneva Convention Add’l Prot. I, Article 31: Airspace • According to Article 31 of the 1st Add’l Protocol to the Geneva Convention, No aircraft (to include medical emergency aircraft) may use the airspace of a neutral state, except by prior agreement. Any violation of this violates the host nation’s neutrality and allows for an attack on the aircraft in question. Although some strikes in Yemen had been cleared by both governments, the Yemeni government soon rescinded its approval, and the United States has been actively deploying drones in countries in which previously arranged flight paths exist. Therefore, despite the unmanned nature of drones, a violation of air sovereignty is occurring.

  5. What Does This All Mean? • The drone strikes, as it stands, often do not respect the clearly defined distinction between combatants and non-combatants (which is one of the tactics terrorists use) (Art. 4) • Drones are a newly-employed weapon (like the nuclear bomb, tanks, mustard gas, and hollow-point bullets) that need to be reviewed by high-contracting Geneva signatories. Some new weapons are approved, some are forbidden. (Art.36) • U.S. drone strikes have historically violated Mexican, Yemeni, Pakistani, Omani, Syrian, Somali, and Ethiopian airspace. These drones are on killing missions, and violate airspace that not even peaceful supply, medical, or diplomatic aircraft may violate without a prior agreement. (Art.43) How can we insist that other countries follow the Geneva Conventions and obey international law when we don’t even do it?

  6. How Could We Use Drones? • If three conditions are met in the future, drone strikes might be allowed: • Drones are only used for close air support, once the enemy is actively engaged in combat. • The 115 parties of the Geneva Convention agree that drones are a legitimate weapon. • Pre-existing agreements are made in the countries where the strikes are carried out, or we use them in a war against an actual country. Until then… Drone strikes are not a viable option and should not be continued.

  7. Psychology

  8. Psychological Effects • Several International Law Experts have cited that there are higher rates of PTSD in drone pilots. • A Pentagon study reflects nearly 30 percent of drone pilots suffer from “Burnout.” • The same study found that around 17 percent are “clinically distressed” to the point of interference with the pilots’ personal lives.

  9. Cont. • The US Air Force has stated that the stressors placed on drone pilots are relatively new and uncharted. • The nature of drone warfare contributes to high levels of stress – “observe and execute.” • The high demand for drones in the sky is creating an overuse of pilots.

  10. Morality

  11. Proportionality • Military Necessity or “Necessity Principle” • Objectifying • Dehumanizing • Preemptive Strikes

  12. Sources • http://www.npr.org/2011/12/19/143926857/report-high-levels-of-burnout-in-u-s-drone-pilots • http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/uncategorized/ask-the-experts-drones/14813/

More Related