Drone Attacks;

Challenges for Global

peace and Human Rights
Violation
By;
Rafia Nasir

Introduction;
In todays world, the greatest threat to global peace is not
from nuclear proliferation, but it is from drones and their
certain proliferation.

Nuclear bombs are useless weapons assumed to be a

symbol of power, but drones are now sweeping the global
arms market. There are some 10,000 to be said in service
of which a thousand are armed and mostly American. Some
reports say they have killed more non-combatant civilians

then died in 9/11

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001

attacks, the Bush administration began a campaign
of targeted killing against suspected members of
Al Qaeda and other armed groups. The CIA
allegedly carried out its first targeted drone killing
in February 2002 in Afghanistan.

Six months later, on November 3, 2002, the US

took the targeted killing program to Yemen, which
set the precedent the full scale program of targeted
killing by drone in Pakistan.

The Obama administration has now escalated this

program to Somalia and currently in Nigeria as
well.

Personality Strikes and so-called

A key feature of the Obama administrations use
Signature Strikes
of drones has been a reported expansion in the

of drones has been a reported expansion in the

use of signature strikes.
Between 2002 and 2007, the Bush administration
reportedly focused targeted killings on
personality strikes. But under Obama, the
program expanded to include far more profile or
so-called signature strikes based on a pattern
of life analysis.

Drone Campaign in Pakistan;

Pakistani officials have been very vocal,

particularly in 2012, in their opposition to ongoing
drone strikes in FATA. They have asserted that the
strikes are unlawful, a violation of Pakistans
sovereignty, and counterproductive

As strikes have increased, the opposition to the

US within Pakistan also further exacerbated by
three separate events: the public shooting of two
men by CIA agent Raymond Davis in January, the
May raid of Osama bin Ladens compound and his
killing, and the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in an
errant NATO airstrike in November.

Drone Attacks in Yemen;

US strikes in Yemen increased in spring 2012, with between

15 and 62 reported strikes, more than in the previous ten
years combined.

Media reports suggest that JSOC personnel are on the

ground in Yemen, coordinating the drone strikes.

Christopher Swifts article Strikes in Yemen Arent Pushing

People to Al Qaeda (July 2012) draws conclusions about
the expanded U.S./Yemen drone program in Yemen,
including signature strikes, based on interviews concerning
a different and limited Yemen campaign. ,

in 2011, during a period of political turmoil and government

transition in Yemen, the United States reportedly conducted
strikes without approval.

Statistics of Cumulative deaths and

injuries;

There has been no large-scale study, but several

investigations have been made by some
organizations, reporting the number of causalities
resulted by drone campaign.

Those estimates are mostly based on media

reports, local fixers, leaked intelligence and legal
claims.

 In

Pakistan, some indigenous and

foreign organizations have taken up
this task.
According to Bureau of Investigative
Journalism, a total of 2,562 to 3325
have been killed in drone campaign,
including 474 to 881 civilian deaths
reported in last year.

 In

Yemen, New American Foundation

reported killing of 531 to 779 people,
with a civilian causality rate between
4 to 8.5 percent in 2012.

In

Somalia, Bureau of Investigative

Journalism reported death of 58 to
169 people, of which 11 to 57 were
civilians.

Drones being Retaliatory and

Counter-productive;

The UN expert Ben Emmerson has noted that

Pakistan had been clear in expressing its fears
that the drone campaign would ultimately be
counter-productive, suggesting that it would
further contribute to "radicalizing a whole new
generation, and thereby perpetuating the
problem of terrorism in the region."
As the case of FATA has shown, drone strikes can
and have lead to al-Qaeda recruitment. In fact,
Beitullah Mehsud, former leader of the Tehrik-iTaliban in Pakistan is quoted as having said:
Every drone strike brings me three or four new
suicide bombers.

Drone Strikes under International

IHRL permits the intentional use of lethal force only when
strictly necessary
and proportionate. Law
Thus, targeted
Humanitarian
killings as typically understood (intentional and

premeditated killings) cannot be lawful under IHRL, which

allows intentional lethal force only when necessary to
protect against a threat to life, and where there are no
other means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation,
of preventing that threat to life.

There is little public evidence that many of the targeted

killings carried out fulfill this strict legal test.

Many particular strikes and practices suggest breaches of

the test, including: signature strikes; strikes on rescuers;
the administrations apparent definition of militant; the
lack of evidence of imminent threat; and the practice of
extensive surveillance and presence on a list before killing.

The nature and effect of the US targeted killing

policy may also contravene in some instances
other sections of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), an international
human rights treaty ratified by the US.

Sections of the ICCPR potentially violated by US

drone practice include Article 7 (prohibition on
cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or
punishment), Article 9.1 (right to liberty and
security), Article 17 (right to freedom from
arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy,
family, and home), Article 21 (right to peaceful
assembly), and Article 22 (right to freedom of
association).

Proliferation of Drones;

Security analysts fear that with the increasing proliferation

of unmanned aerial drone technology, terrorists could
eventually begin using them to drop explosives or even
biological weapons.

Analysts are particularly concerned as roughly fifty nations

have purchased or are developing drones including India,
Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, and Russia.

More troubling, China is now selling twenty-five different

types of drones.

The United States is setting a precedent for other

nations to follow, but not necessarily all of them
will be sharing interests US is having.

If countries begin to follow the precedent set by

the US, there is also the risk of weakening preexisting international norms about the use of
violence.

Christopher Heyns reports that these reports

carried out by US might encourage other states
to flout long established human rights standards.

Conclusion;

Do the use of drone strikes create more insurgents than

they remove and do the benefits outweigh the cost? While
this question is broad, and FATA, the testing ground for the
only large-scale drone campaign serve as case study to
identify ramifications of the expansion of this campaign
elsewhere.

The practices employed, and legal frameworks articulated,

by the US today may set dangerous precedents for future
engagements, including for other countries and armed nonstate actors. As the technology develops, and as drones
become increasingly autonomous, these concerns will likely
continue to magnify.

Drone attacks may justify detention and criminal

prosecution, but may not be legally sufficient to justify
lethal targeting, and in any event, may not warrant killing
from a humanitarian perspective.

These strikes breed resentment and discontent toward the

US, and there is evidence to suggest that the strikes have
aided militant recruitment and motivated terrorist activity,
as David Kilcullen, a former advisor to US General David
Petraeus, has stated that, every one of these dead
noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new
desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant
movement that has grown exponentially even as drone
strikes have increased

Thank You