Choosing a legal framework would render US drone strikes unlawful

Evidence

This artistic blurring has puzzled many jurists. They tell politicians they must declare whether it is a matter of war or of legitimate self-defense; they must choose. However, the administration refuses to do that because the consequence of resolving ambiguities in the framework of reference would entail the prohibition of the present drone strikes or would drastically limit their lawfulness. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 537

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Drones cannot comply with law-enforcement rules because they offer no graded force options — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 542; Neither law-enforcement nor laws-of-war frameworks can legally justify drone strikes; Drone strikes outside declared battlefields violate international law — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 251 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• The US deliberately maintains legal ambiguity about drone strikes even in court #complicates (0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 536
• Drones undermine the tacit geographic limits built into the laws of war #complicates (0.55) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 851