Public Law Studies Quarterly

Reflections on the Legal Status of Drone Strikes Against Terrorism

Authors

Seyyed Mohammad Hosseini 1
Mehrdad Mohammadi 1
Yaser Mokarrami 2

1 Ph.D. in International Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2018.238385.1554
Abstract
In recent decades, the Middle East has been the scene of armed conflicts between ultra-regional powers and some regional states and non-state actors, such as terrorist groups. During the past decade the use of drones for bombing, assassination, detection and espionage by ultra-regional states has been prevalent under various pretexts in the Middle East region, which has mostly led to the violation of state sovereignty of regional states. This violation of sovereignty has always been legally justified by the ultra-regional governments. The major part of such justifications has been based upon the legal challenges on the rules governing the use of drones. They are, in fact, considered as coverage for illegal activities of these states. These challenges have largely been in line with the interpretation of the provisions against the use of force and self-defense, the rules governing the conflicts and the rules of humanitarian law and fight against terrorism. Therefore, a clear understanding and interpretation of these challenges and resolving them according to international legal rules can provide a realistic picture of the status quo and leads to a more accurate understanding of the international law in this field.

Keywords

Drones
International Law
the Law of Armed Conflicts
International Humanitarian law
Human rights law

  1. 1. فارسی

    الف)کتاب‌ها

    1. ذوالعین، پرویز (1390). مبانی حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین‌المللی، چاپ هفتم.

    2. شکوهی، حسین (1392). نقش پهپادها در جنگ­های آینده (صحنه نبرد ناهمگون)، انتشارات دانشگاه عالی دفاع ملی (داعا)، چاپ دوم.

    3. ممتاز، جمشید؛ شایگان، فریده (1393). حقوق بین­الملل بشردوستانه در برابر چالش­های مخاصمات مسلحانه در عصر حاضر، انتشارات حقوقی شهر دانش، چاپ اول.

     

    ب) مقالات

    4. تقی­‌زاده، زکیه؛ هداوندی، فاطمه (1391) «کاوشی در مشروعیت استفاده از هواپیماهای بدون سرنشین در حقوق بین‌­الملل»، فصلنامه مطالعات بین‌­المللی، سال نهم، شماره 3.

    5. زمانی، سید قاسم؛ پیری، حیدر (1391). «کارکرد منافع ملی حیاتی در حوزه­‌های انسانی حقوق بین‌­الملل: حقوق بشردوستانه»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، شماره 79، پائیز، ص 55.

    6. سرتیپی، حسین؛ بردبار، احمدرضا؛ موسی­زاده، محمد (1391). «بررسی و نقد ترور هدفمند، مبارزه با تروریسم و حقوق مخاصمات مسلحانه بین‌المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، سال چهاردهم، شماره 38.

    7. شهبازی، آرامش؛ جوادی شریف، خدیجه (1392). «وضعیت دولت-کشورهای ناتوان در حقوق بین‌­الملل معاصر»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، سال پانزدهم، شماره 39.

    8. عزیزی، ستار (1392). «بررسی مشروعیت دعوت از مداخله خارجی در مخاصمات داخلی: با تأکید بر رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه «فعالیت‌های نظامی در سرزمین کنگو»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق، سال سیزدهم، شماره 33.

    9. علاقه‌بند‌حسینی، یونس؛ یزدان‌نجات، رزا (1392). «گسترش استفاده از هواپیماهای بدون سرنشین در آیینه حقوق توسل‌به‌زور و مخاصمات مسلحانه»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، سال سی­ام، شماره 48.

    10. کرم‌­زاده، سیامک (1382). «تروریزم و دفاع مشروع در حقوق بین‌­الملل»، فصلنامه مدرس، دوره 7، شماره 1.

    11. ممتاز، جمشید؛ صابری انصاری، بهزاد (1391). «تأثیر رویه بعدی دولت‌ها بر اصل «منع تهدید و توسل‌به‌زور»، فصلنامه راهبرد، سال بیست و یکم، شماره 63.

    12. ممتاز، جمشید (1393). جایگاه پهپادها در درگیری‌های مسلحانه. قابل دسترس در: http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/fa/.

     

    2. انگلیسی

    A) Books

    1. Greenwood, Christopher (2004). Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law, Fleck. Dieter (ed.), The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press.
    2. Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University (2013). Commentary to the HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. In HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare,Cambridge University Press.
    3. Schmitt, Michael N. (2010). Drone Attacks under the Jus ad Bellum And Jus in Bello: Clearing the ‘Fog of Law’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol. 13.

     

    B) Articles

    1. Casey-Maslen, Stuart (2012). Pandora’s Box? Drone Strikes under Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, And International Human Rights Law, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 94, Number 886.
    2. Lewis, Michael W. (2012). Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield, Texas International Law Journal, Volume 47, Issue 2.
    3. Lubell, Noam. Derejko, Nathan (2013).  AGlobal Battlefield? Drones and the Geographical Scope of Armed Conflict, Journal of International Criminal Justice 11.
    4. O’Connell, Mary Ellen (2010). The International Law of Drones, ASIL Insight, Volume 14, Issue 37.
    5. Orr, Andrew C. (2011). Unmanned, Unprecedented and Unresolved: The Status of American Drone Strikes in Pakistan Under International Law, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 44.
    6. Paust, Jordan J. (2010). “Self-Defense Targetings of Non-State Actors and Permissibility of the US Use of Drones in Pakistan”, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, vol. 19.
    7. Ross, Alice K. Serle, Jack (2014). Why Have US Drones Targeted So Many Houses in Pakistan?, VICE News Site. Also available at: https://news.vice.com/article/why-have-us-drones-targeted-so-many-houses-in-pakistan

     

    C) Documents

    1. Advisory Opinion on Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, I.C.J Judgement 1996.
    2. Alston, Philip, 28 May 2010, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Study on Targeted Killings, A/HRC/14/24/Add.6.
    3. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congov. Uganda), I.C.J Judgement Reports, 2005.
    4. I.C.J. Reports 2004, “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, Advisory Opinion.
    5. Letter of  Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to President of the Security Council  of The United Nations, 8 December 2011,  NO 1396.
    6. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), I.C.J Judgment of 6 November 2003.
    7. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber Decisions, 1995.
    8. S/2012/851, 19 November 2012, Identical letters dated 15 November 2012 from the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council.
    9. Sterio, Melina, 2012, The United States’ Use of Drones in the War on Terror: The (Il)legality of Targeted Killings Under International Law, Case Western Reserve Journal of  International Law, vol. 45.
    10. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944).
    11. The Principle of Non-Intervention in Civil Wars, The Institute of International Law, 1975.
    12. United States of America: ‘Targeted killing’ policies violate the right to life, 2012, Amnesty International Publication. Also available at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/usa_targeted_killing.pdf
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 49, Issue 1
Spring 2019
Pages 291-310

  • Receive Date 22 July 2017
  • Revise Date 17 October 2017
  • Accept Date 14 February 2018

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us