The use of drones opens a new chapter in the law of armed conflict (LAC) and International humanitarian law (IHL). The hypothetical scenario for the sake of argument will be: An Al Qaida leader who has been taking part in combat is found in the streets of Kabul. He is surrounded by civilians, and he is wearing civilian clothing himself and is not currently involved in combative activities. A targeted killing through a drone strike is possible but would bring civilian causalities with it. This case brings with itself several legal issues, which will be explored in this paper.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Issue
3. Regulatory Legal Frame Work
4. Application
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary research objective is to analyze whether the current framework of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is adequate to address the legal challenges posed by asymmetrical warfare, specifically regarding targeted killings by drones against non-state actors in civilian-populated areas.
- The evolution of armed conflict from symmetric interstate wars to asymmetrical warfare.
- The legal classification of non-state actors and the definition of combatants under IHL.
- The applicability of the right to self-defense against non-state actors in the absence of a host state.
- The legal challenges and protection disparities arising from the use of drones in asymmetric conflicts.
- The necessity of balancing military necessity with humanitarian considerations and the principle of proportionality.
Excerpt from the Book
Issue:
Kunar. Afghanistan on October 23th Al Qaida leader Faruq al Qatani got killed by targeted killing by a US American drone. Targeted assassinations are a common practice and part of the war strategy of the United States in Afghanistan. The use of drones opens a new chapter in the law of armed conflict (LAC) and International humanitarian law (IHL). The hypothetical scenario for the sake of argument will be: An Al Qaida leader who has been taking part in combat is found in the streets of Kabul. He is surrounded by civilians, and he is wearing civilian clothing himself and is not currently involved in combative activities. A targeted killing through a drone strike is possible but would bring civilian causalities with it. This case brings with itself several legal issues.
IHL intends to find an equilibrium between the indispensable armed strikes to unarm the opponent and humanity. When the non-state actor's action is not ascribable to the government on which territory it operates and the group uses strategies are part of asymmetric warfare. Even though, asymmetric warfare has been part of the social practice of war since the beginning of war. The nature of warfare has been changing dramatically. It has shifted from a classical symmetrical interstate war to a form that has long been around, yet in a less prominent way. In asymmetrical warfare, the conflicting parties are more and more differing in size and combatant capability. The rule of the equality of weaponry does not hold for this constellation. The less dominant party is enticed to resort to a lawless method of military action to compensate for the overwhelming power advantage of the opponent. The conflicting parties do not hold the same war goals and have different ways and practices to conduct their maneuvers and strategies.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter introduces the core ethical and legal tension between humanity and the conduct of warfare, framing the discourse with the words of Winston S. Churchill.
Issue: This section details the emergence of asymmetric warfare and the specific legal dilemmas surrounding drone strikes against non-state actors when civilians are present.
Regulatory Legal Frame Work: This chapter examines the existing legal statutes, including the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions, and discusses the schools of thought regarding self-defense against non-state actors.
Application: This section applies the discussed legal frameworks to the hypothetical scenario of a drone strike, highlighting the challenges of defining combatant status and maintaining proportionality.
Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that contemporary IHL is currently ill-equipped to regulate asymmetric warfare and calls for an interdisciplinary approach to develop future legal standards.
Keywords
Asymmetrical warfare, International Humanitarian Law, IHL, drone strikes, targeted killing, non-state actors, self-defense, proportionality, Geneva Conventions, armed conflict, combatant, civilians, collateral damage, military necessity, transnational terrorism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this publication?
The work examines whether current International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is sufficient to handle the legal complexities emerging from asymmetrical warfare, particularly regarding drone strikes against non-state entities.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The main themes include the definition of combatants, the limits of the right to self-defense, the distinction between military necessity and humanitarian protection, and the regulation of new weapon technologies like drones.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks whether the existing framework of IHL can adequately respond to the legal issues arising from asymmetrical warfare between a sovereign state and a non-state actor.
Which scientific or legal methodologies are applied?
The author employs a legal analysis methodology, reviewing international treaties (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions), customary law, and jurisprudence from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body evaluates how drone warfare challenges traditional IHL, analyzes the legal status of combatants versus civilians, and explores the practical application of proportionality in scenarios where targets are shielded by civilians.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Asymmetrical warfare, IHL, drone strikes, targeted killing, non-state actors, self-defense, and proportionality.
How does the author define the status of a non-state actor under IHL?
The author notes that non-state actors are often viewed as unlawful groups or terrorists, but argues that under specific conditions—such as possessing structural organization and territory—they may be involved in non-international armed conflicts governed by IHL.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the legality of drone strikes in asymmetric settings?
The author concludes that current IHL is under-regulated for these scenarios, noting that targeted killings remain legally problematic, especially when civilian collateral damage is predictable and when capturing the target might be possible.
- Quote paper
- Otto Möller (Author), 2017, Can the existing framework of international humanitarian law adequately respond to issues arising from the so-called asymmetrical warfare between a sovereign state and a non-state actor?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/373378
