Neither law-enforcement nor laws-of-war frameworks can legally justify drone strikes

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 (#expands, via linked claim)

As the jurist Mary Ellen O’Connell, who describes the present-day drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen as illegal, reminds us: “Drones launch missiles or drop bombs, the kind of weapons that may only be used lawfully in armed conflict hostilities.” The fact is that “there was no armed conflict on the territory of Pakistan because there was no intense armed fighting between organized armed groups. International law does not recognize the right to kill with battlefield weapons outside an actual armed conflict. The so-called ‘global war on terror’ is not an armed conflict.” These strikes therefore constitute grave violations of the laws of war. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 251 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

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; Choosing a legal framework would render US drone strikes unlawful — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 537; US justifies drone strikes by blending two inconsistent legal paradigms (+3 more)

Related

• Choosing a legal framework would render US drone strikes unlawful (similarity 0.94)
• Clarity on legal framework would prohibit most current drone strikes (similarity 0.93)
• US justifies drone strikes by blending two inconsistent legal paradigms (similarity 0.92)
• Drone strikes outside declared battlefields violate international law (similarity 0.91)
• Drones cannot comply with law-enforcement rules because they offer no graded force options (similarity 0.88)
• The US deliberately maintains legal ambiguity about drone strikes even in court (similarity 0.87)
• Drone strikes occur in countries officially at peace, not just war zones. (similarity 0.86)
• US dual legal justifications blur the line between armed conflict and self-defense (similarity 0.85)
• Obama’s drone campaign targeted five Muslim-majority countries and violated international law. (similarity 0.83)
• Drone strikes constitute weapons of state terrorism (similarity 0.83)
• Drone warfare operates everywhere rather than only on defined battlefields (similarity 0.80)
• Drone strikes are justified as self-defense and life-and-cost-saving substitutes for ground war (similarity 0.80)
• Drones undermine the tacit geographic limits built into the laws of war (similarity 0.79)
• Drones abolish the condition of combat that makes combatants identifiable. (similarity 0.79)
• Drone strikes amount tactically to the state’s version of insurgent bomb attacks. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Choosing a legal framework would render US drone strikes unlawful #expands (0.80) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 537
• Clarity on legal framework would prohibit most current drone strikes #expands (0.80)
• Drone strikes outside declared battlefields violate international law #corroborates (0.70) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 251
• US justifies drone strikes by blending two inconsistent legal paradigms #qualifies (0.60)