Don't Hate on the Drones: UAV Strikes in Pakistan and Yemen are Lawful and Necessary in the Global War on Terror

Jennifer R. Sykes, University of Richmond

Abstract

Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are commonplace on the modern battlefield in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (and in Libya with the current air war), but their continued use occurs amid growing international controversy. Much of the disagreement involves the lawfulness of armed UAVs launching Hellfire missiles at al Qaeda in Yemen and at al Qaeda and Taliban along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. I argue these UAV strikes are lawful – even without the affected sovereign’s consent.

In particular, UAVs are lawful weapons that can be employed in accordance with customary international law, the U.N. Charter, and the law of armed conflict. Moreover, UAVs provide the U.S. military with an unmatched capability to push into the “source” and safe havens of al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds unlike conventional, manned attack platforms such as fighter aircraft and AC-130 gunships. In fact, the United States justifies the use of UAVs against such targets by its expansion of the self-defense doctrine contained in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Even though Yemen and Pakistan remain neutral in the Global War on Terror, the United States may violate their neutrality and sovereignty to conduct attacks against high value targets contained in their borders. The drone controversy is overblown; UAV strikes conducted by the U.S. military against military targets within neutral countries, outside the theater of combat operations, are both lawful and necessary.