UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL TERRORISM: A STUDY OF THE USE OF DRONES

AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The overall objective of this study is to understand the legal context and the implications for international law of the increasing use of drones by the US in the global war against terrorism.

The specific objectives of this study are:

(i).  To examine if the  U.S  declaration of war on terror is in line with provisions of international law on armed conflict.

(ii). To examine the legal framework of US use of drones in targeting and killing terrorists in the context of extant international laws

(iii). Examine the challenges in the U.S’s use of drones in its war against terrorists.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

After September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States of America, Benjamin(2013) stated that the executive branch obtained the approval of Congress in the Authorization for use of military force to declare a global war on terror.

Pursuant to this authorization, former President of the U.S, George Bush authorized the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs popularly known as Drones in the war against terrorists, primarily to target and kill Al Qaeda leaders and “associated forces.

Al Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the attack on the USA. Over the past twelve years, the use of UAVs by the U.S has expanded exponentially in scope, location, and frequency since the U.S  has deployed them in the fight against terrorism.

Prior to the attack,  groups alleged to be terrorists had previously attacked U.S interests in other parts of the world. On August 7, 1998, in a strike that marked Al Qaeda’s entrance into worldwide notoriety, suicide bombers in a vehicle-borne attack almost simultaneously detonated bombs in two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania with victim death of 225.

On October 12, 2000, a 35-foot boat loaded with explosives rammed the USS Cole amidships, ripping a 32-foot by 36-foot hole and causing extensive internal damages, while it was moored for refueling at the Arden Habour, in Yemen. There were 17 deaths and damage from the blast took eighteen months and $250 million to fix.

It took the 9/11 attacks for the US to articulate and begin the implementation of the “global war against terror”. This declaration of ‘war’ saw a shift in counterterrorism paradigm and strategy. With this paradigm shift, the US took the lead role in rallying the rest of the world in articulating and implementing policies to fight terrorism.

Drones have been in use since the end of World War II. They were used primarily for military observation missions to obtain information on the location and force of enemy troops and to support the deployment of ground troops. It was only after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that the use of drones evolved from reconnaissance to attack and they became fitted with missiles (Spires, 2012).

The technology of drones continues to evolve. The latest drones can hover in the air for days at an altitude of over 60,000 feet. With state-of-the-art surveillance systems, they provide real-time imagery and intelligence to commanders on the ground. When a significant target is detected by commanders on the ground based on the intelligence provided by the drone, the same drone can attack with deadly force.

The technology saves the commander time by acting on real-time intelligence immediately without having to scramble a jet fighter from across the world. It also takes American pilots completely away from harm’s way. Drones can fly to where American pilots may have difficulty reaching. Because they are far cheaper than fighter jets, the loss is less in the event they are shot down (Spires,2012).

These seeming advantages of drones have caused the Obama administration to embrace technology in the war against terror. But this policy shift from American boots on the ground to “unmanned drone aircraft controlled from thousands of miles away dropping bombs on accused terrorists” (Bell, 2012) has increasingly provoked vocal critics. These critics have challenged the morality, legality, effectiveness, and political implications of using drones in the war against terror (Steno, 2012). For instance, Camilleri (2013), writing on the blowback effect says that drone warfare rests on “weak ethical and legal foundations” and Boyle (2013) contends that “a drones-first counterterrorism policy is a losing strategic proposition over the long term”.

The deployment of drones in the war against terror presents complex issues in interpreting international law in the age of modern warfare (Chengeta, 2011). This study notes at this point there is a controversy surrounding the use of advanced weapons in warfare is not new to international law.  Improvement in technology has produced sophisticated weapons of war with no strong legislation regulating their use had mostly lagged behind. These developments such weapons as crossbows, gunpowder, machine guns, tanks, airplanes, noxious gases, nuclear bombs, and a host of other deadly weapons have changed the landscape of war (Vogel, 2010). With every one of these inventions, states have had to reassess and determine the applicability to the extant laws governing armed conflict.

As more states move to acquire the technology and integrate drones in their arsenal of combat weapons it becomes the responsibility of the international community at this time to reassess and determine the implications of the use of drones by the US in the first instance in the war against terror on the existing framework of international law. The outcome of such reassessment will form the basis of norms, treaties, and general principles that will guide the future use of

drones in combat…

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The events of 9/11 on the U.S  World Trade Centre and Pentagon are historic in world history as the U.S was assaulted by the transnational terrorist network under al-Qaeda. The aftermath of this event was a decisive action from the U.S Government the declaration of the Global War on Terror complemented by a host of legislations to combat global terrorism.

The advanced technology adopted in this attack led U.S Government to resort to the use of drones in its war against terrorists as a means of winning the war.

In an attempt to achieve increased accuracy and efficiency in targeting and killing terrorists, and to avoid the loss of lives of U.S soldiers which has brought domestic pressures,  the U. S has increasingly turned to drones to target and kill so-called enemies in its war with terrorists.

These targeted killings by the US in and out of war zones with terrorists have raised concerns by the international community on the applicable laws for targeted killings using drones. In recent reports by two UN Special Rapporteurs, Human Rights Watch (2013)  International community has called on the U.S to justify these targeted killings. To the U.S, its war with terrorists is a just war. On the other hand, some scholars have argued that the applicable law is not that of armed conflict because the US war against terrorists cannot be justified under the law of armed conflict and thus the applicable law is the International Humanitarian Law.  Others yet have argued that the applicable law is the International Human Rights Law. Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions (Alston, 2010) has stated his cautious concern that “drones … are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law”.

Expectedly other countries have begun to embrace drone technology and weaponry. This has exacerbated the debate by scholars, drone experts, military tacticians, and politicians on the use of drones in combat. It becomes very necessary to clarify and understand the applicable international law(s). The scholarly and legal debates on the use of drones in combat have so far proved inconclusive in the applicable frameworks for the use of drones in the war against terror. There has been a great profusion of issues and questions relating to the legality of the use of drones in the war against terror, especially as regards the use of drones in both personality and signature strikes (Vishvanathan, 2013; O’Connell, 2010; Benjamin, 2013).

Scholars are not agreed on the answer to this question. As drones appear set to become a permanent and “growing feature in the application of modern military force” (Vogel, 2010), it becomes imperative to access their use for lethal targeted killing in these non-traditional armed conflicts. It becomes necessary to evaluate the challenges in the U.S’s use of drones in its war on terror.

It becomes important to assess the international legal framework to determine the adequacy of U.S use of drones in its war in armed conflict with al-Qaeda and associated groups.

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The overall objective of this study is to understand the legal context and the implications for international law of the increasing use of drones by the US in the global war against terrorism.

The specific objectives of this study are:

(i).  To examine the  U.S  declaration of war on terror is in line with provisions of international law on armed conflict.

(ii). To examine the legal framework of US use of drones in targeting and killing terrorists in the context of extant international laws

(iii). Examine the challenges in the U.S’s use of drones in its war against terrorists.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION

The author intends to achieve the above objectives by addressing the following questions:

1. How does the U.S declaration of war on terror comply with the provision of international law on armed conflict?
2. How does the U.S legal framework for the use of drones in targeting and killing terrorists in compliance with existing International law?

• What are the challenges in the U.S’s use of drones in its war on terrorists?

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will be useful to governments of various countries in formulating policies on the use of drones as instruments of warfare. The knowledge this study will generate will assist governments to conform to international instruments in the conduct of war.

International organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, African Union, International Law Commission, Human Right Watch, and a host of other international institutions on the challenges surrounding the use of drones and the need to reform international conventions, treaties, international humanitarian law to regulate the use of drones.

Academic institutions, scholars, and all consumers of knowledge will benefit from the study as it throws insights into the menace of terrorism and effort to strengthen research on how to combat terrorism taking insight from the social forces that led to terrorism. This will help to sharpen their views on current world challenges posed by terrorism.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY/LIMITATIONS

This study is an Analysis of the United State of America,s fight against global terrorism: A case study on the U.S use of drones, and it has the following limitations.

Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in sourcing the relevant materials, literature, or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire, and interview). Time constraint- The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted to the research work.