US dual legal justifications blur the line between armed conflict and self-defense

Evidence

The United States, writes Laurie Blank, relies “on both armed conflict and self-defense as legal justifications for targeted strikes outside of the zone of active combat… . It is the United States’ insistence on using reference to both paradigms as justification for individual attacks and the broader program of targeted strikes that raises significant concerns for the use of international law and the protection of individuals by blurring the lines between the key parameters of the two paradigms.” — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1044

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in the twisted logic of impunity for imperial combatants — dual legal paradigms as impunity mechanism. — connects to: Some advocates propose a new legal regime of unconstrained lethal self-defense; US justifies drone strikes by blending two inconsistent legal paradigms; The US deliberately maintains legal ambiguity about drone strikes even in court — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 536 (+3 more)

Related

• US justifies drone strikes by blending two inconsistent legal paradigms (similarity 0.90)
• The US deliberately maintains legal ambiguity about drone strikes even in court (similarity 0.89)
• Neither law-enforcement nor laws-of-war frameworks can legally justify drone strikes (similarity 0.85)
• Clarity on legal framework would prohibit most current drone strikes (similarity 0.85)
• Choosing a legal framework would render US drone strikes unlawful (similarity 0.84)
• Some advocates propose a new legal regime of unconstrained lethal self-defense (similarity 0.83)
• Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war. (similarity 0.81)
• A legal hybrid of war and policing grants a global license to kill (similarity 0.81)
• Drone warfare creates a new configuration that is neither war nor peace (similarity 0.80)
• The proposed hybrid legal regime grants a global right of lethal policing (similarity 0.79)
• Drone strikes outside declared battlefields violate international law (similarity 0.79)
• The combatant-to-militant shift expands the right to kill indefinitely (similarity 0.79)
• Just-cause theorists grant only the just warrior the right to kill (similarity 0.79)
• Drone strikes are justified as self-defense and life-and-cost-saving substitutes for ground war (similarity 0.78)
• Unilateral drone killing makes the legal right to kill merely formal. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• War on terror justice neutralizes the rule of law in the name of security #corroborates (0.75)
• Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war. #expands (0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 128