Drone Strikes: An Overview, Articulation and Assessment of the United States' Position Under International Law
The United States unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV or drone) program has origins dating back to the early part of the twentieth century. From crude target tug vessels to sophisticated Hellfire missile delivery vehicles, United States drones have undergone a gradual metamorphosis from their early days as an obscure technology to their present status as a center piece in global counterterrorism operations. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the onset of the war on terror, weaponized drones have effectuated thousands of strikes in numerous countries spanning multiple continents in the course of a claimed non-international armed conflict with “al-Qaida, the Taliban and their associated forces.” A plethora of scholarship has evaluated aspects of the legal underpinnings of the nearly two decade-long campaign and its utilization of weaponized drones. This article builds upon that analytic foundation to date in articulating and assessing the present United States legal position vis-à-vis its lethal drone strike operations under relevant principles of international law. It identifies numerous instances in which the United States position departs to varying degree from general international understanding and concludes that, in the aggregate, these deviations are sufficient to pose serious international rule of law concerns. It then goes further to briefly consider possible alternatives for mitigating these concerns, but notes their challenges given prevailing political circumstances. The article is organized in four parts. Part I provides a condensed history of the development of drone capabilities in the United States and their use under the administrations of Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump. Part II surveys principles of international law relevant to the analysis of United States drone strike operations abroad. Part III draws on key government documents to articulate the United States legal position, including its jus ad bellum justifications and stance on international humanitarian and international human rights law principles, and offers a legal assessment. Part IV briefly considers and evaluates possible alternatives to the present position.