Direct Versus Indirect is Not the Question: Assessing the Legality of In-Person and Drone Targeted Strikes

Natasha Marusja Saputo, Georgetown University Law Center

Abstract

The use of drones to carry out targeted strikes against alleged members of al-Qaeda and the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban in States—such as Pakistan and Yemen—outside the direct theater of combat where armed conflict is occurring for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan is extraordinarily controversial. Much of the controversy stems from the fact that there is no consensus as to the applicable legal framework to evaluate the legality of such strikes. Conversely, the use of in-person strike teams purportedly commissioned by Israel to carry out targeted strikes against alleged members of hostile organizations and foreign governments deemed to be a threat to Israel in States in which no armed conflict is occurring is roundly condemned by the vast majority of the international community. This divergence is notable because upon closer examination the two types of strikes may not be meaningfully dissimilar from a legal standpoint.