Drone strikes and targeted killing operations are generally the most ubiquitous aspect of 21st Century Western counterinsurgency and counterterrorism policy, affecting countries in the Middle East and other parts of the decolonized world. 

Debates around such conduct often pivot on questions of legality. In the talk I gave at the Middle East Institute in April this year, I provided a longer than usual historical perspective on such debates. The aim was to highlight the deficiencies, or, better, dangers of the current debate, by comparing it with the international law discussions around such conduct from another era. 

Two cases were placed next to one another: the Security Council resolution adopted following the killing of Khalil-al-Wazir in Tunisia in 1988, condemning the Israeli conduct as an “act of aggression”; the other, a 2014 panel discussion on drone warfare in the Human Rights Council where a number of key actors and states demanded that drone warfare is brought into conformity with human rights and humanitarian law (IHL) so that it can be subject to greater transparency and legal accountability.

While both cases represent the application of international law to counter-terrorism policy, the claim is that the change of fora and substantive law relied on makes all the difference. Whereas the first incident represents a reaffirmation of the sovereignty of post-colonial states through a norm prohibiting intervention, the other is part of a restructuring of legitimate forms of warfare that may lead to the undermining of post-colonial statehood in international law.