Skip to main content

Drone Attacks under the Jus ad Bellum And Jus in Bello: Clearing the ‘Fog of Law’

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2010

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ((YIHL,volume 13))

Abstract

This article explores the legal issues raised by the use of drones (unmanned aircraft systems) in armed conflicts. In particular it assesses such use from the perspective of the jus ad bellum, that component of international law governing the resort to force by States, and the jus in bello (or international humanitarian law), the international law governing how such force may be applied. It concludes that the law of self-defence provides a clear basis for the extraterritorial use of drones under the jus ad bellum, albeit with certain key limitations. As to the use of drones on the battlefield, the article finds no significant basis for treating drones differently than other weapon systems under the jus in bello. Rather, the key is strict fidelity to the extant norms of international humanitarian law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Boothby B (2010) ‘And for such time as’: the time dimension to direct participation in hostilities. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 42:741–769

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2004) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays Parks W (2010) Part IX of the ICRC ‘Direct participation in hostilities’ Study: no mandate, no expertise, and legally incorrect. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 42:769–831

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (eds) (2005) Customary international humanitarian law, vol. I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Landler M (2009) U.S., Pakistan and Afghanistan to hold regular talks, New York Times, 27 Feb 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer J (2009) The predator war, The New Yorker, 26 Oct 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. IRRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Risen J, Mazzetti M (2009) C.I.A. said to use outsiders to put bombs on drones, New York Times, 21 August 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A, Guelff R (eds) (2000) Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Roggio B, Mayer A (2010) US air campaign in Pakistan heats up, The Long War Journal, available at www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/01/analysis_us_air_camp.php

  • Roggio B, Mayer A (2011) Charting the data for US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004–2011, The Long War Journal. Available at www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

  • Schmitt MN (2008a) ‘Change Direction’ 2006: Israeli operations in Lebanon and the international law of self-defense. Michigan J Int Law 29:127

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2008b) Responding to transnational terrorism under the jus ad bellum: a normative framework. Naval Law Rev 56:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2008c) Targeted killings in international law: law enforcement, self-defense and armed conflict. In: Arnold R, Quénivet N (eds) International humanitarian law and human rights law: towards a new merger in international law. Leiden, Brill

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2010a) Deconstructing direct participation in hostilities: the constitutive elements. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 42:697–739

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2010b) The interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities: a critical analysis. Harvard NSJ 1:5–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt E, Mazzetti M (2009) In a first, US provides Pakistan with drone data, New York Times, 14 May 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • von Clausewitz C (1832) On war, Berlin, Dümmler

    Google Scholar 

  • Warrick J, Finn P (2010) CIA director says attacks have hobbled al-Qaeda, Washington Post, 18 March 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkin KK (2010) Opportunity lost: organized armed groups and the ICRC ‘direct participation in hostilities’ Interpretive Guidance. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 42:641–695

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael N. Schmitt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Stichting T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmitt, M.N. (2011). Drone Attacks under the Jus ad Bellum And Jus in Bello: Clearing the ‘Fog of Law’. In: Schmitt, M., Arimatsu, L., McCormack, T. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2010. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol 13. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships