Element contents
Drones, Force and Law
European Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 December 2023
Summary
The central argument set out in this Element is that the combination of a perceived radical change in the threat environment post 9/11, and the new capabilities afforded by the long silent reach of the drone, have put pressure on the previously accepted legal frameworks justifying the use of force. This has resulted in disagreements - both articulated and unarticulated - in how the Western allies should respond to both the legal and operational innovations in the use of force that drones have catalysed. The Element focuses on the responses of the UK, France, and Germany to these developments in the context of the changing US approach to the use of force. Locating itself at the interface of international law and politics, this is the first attempt to look at the interplay between technological innovations, legal justifications, and inter-alliance politics in the context of the use of armed drones.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009451499Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 18 January 2024
References
Ahmed, Y. 2018. RWUK taking UK government to court over refusal to disclose legal basis for targeted killings. Rights & Security International, 20 July. www.rightsandsecurity.org/impact/entry/rights-watch-uk-taking-uk-government-to-court-over-refusal-to-disclose-legal-basis-for-targeted-killings.Google Scholar
Akande, D. & Milanovic, M. 2015. The constructive ambiguity of the security council’s ISIS resolutions. EJIL: Talk! 21 November. www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/.Google Scholar
Banka, A. & Quinn, A. 2018. Killing norms softly: US targeted killing, quasi-secrecy and the assassination ban. Security Studies, 27(4), 665–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, M. 2014. Weapons of Mass Destruction in US Foreign Policy. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Bethlehem, D. 2012. Self-defense against an imminent or actual armed attack by nonstate actors. American Journal of International Law, 106(4), 770–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betts, R. 2003. Striking first: A history of thankfully lost opportunities. Ethics & International Affairs, 17(1), 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhuta, N. 2015. On preventative killing. EJIL: Talk! 17 September 2022. www.ejiltalk.org/author/negal-bhuta.Google Scholar
Birdsall, A. 2022. New technologies and legal justification: The United Kingdom’s use of drones in self-defence. Global Constitutionalism, 11(2), 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, M. J. 2020. The Drone Age: How Drone Technology Will Change War and Peace. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Brunnée, J. & Toope, S. J. 2011. Interactional international law: An introduction. International Theory, 3(2), 307–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunstetter, D. R. & Ferey, A. 2021. Armed drones and sovereignty: The arc of strategic sovereign possibilities. In Lushenko, P., Bose, S., & Maley, W. (eds.), Drones and Global Order: Implications of Remote Warfare for International Society. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Macmillan: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B. 2015. The English School: A neglected approach to international security studies. Security Dialogue, 46(2), 126–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B. & Schouenborg, L. 2018. Global International Society: A New Framework for Analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, M. 1999. Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, M. 2003. Preemptive self-defense: Hegemony, equality and strategies of legal change. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(2), 171–90.Google Scholar
Byers, M. 2021. Still agreeing to disagree: International security and constructive ambiguity. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 8(1), 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, E. H. 1939. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Macmillan: London.Google Scholar
Charbonneau, C. 2017. Whose ‘West Africa’? The regional dynamics of peace and security. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 35(4), 407–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chayes, A. 1974. The Cuban Missile Crisis: International Crisis and the Role of Law. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Chayes, A. H. & Chayes, A. 1998. The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chrisafis, A. 2015. France launches first airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/27/france-launches-first-airstrikes-isis-syria.Google Scholar
Clark, I., 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Clark, I. 2007. International Legitimacy and World Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Clark, I. 2011. Hegemony in International Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, I. & Reus-Smit, C. 2007. Resolving international crises of legitimacy. International Politics, 44(2–3), 153–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claude, I. 1966. Collective legitimization as a political function of the United Nations. International Organization, 20(3), 367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cvijic, S., Klingenberg, L., Goxho, D., & Knight, E.. 2019. Armed Drones in Europe. Open Society European Policy Unit. https://opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/2ded5bae-143a-45ee-9fc9-7d30dbf3b62d/armed-drones-in-europe-20191104.pdf.Google Scholar
Dorsey, J. & Paulussen, C. 2015. Towards a European position on armed drones and targeted killing: Surveying EU counterterrorism perspectives. ICCT. https://icct.nl/app/uploads/2020/10/ICCT-Dorsey-Paulussen-Towards-A-European-Position-On-Armed-Drones-And-Targeted-Killing-Surveying-EU-Counterterrorism-Perspectives.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, C. 2001. Law and military interventions: Preserving humanitarian values in 21st conflicts. Prepared for the Humanitarian Challenges in Military Intervention Conference Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University: Washington, DC, 29 November. https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20170426_press_release_on_UK_Lethal_Drone_Strikes_in_Syria.pdf.Google Scholar
Dworkin, A. 2015. The EU and armed drones: Epilogue. Global Affairs, 1(3), 293–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, T. M. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy among Nations. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. 2002. Recourse to Force: State Action against Threats and Armed Attacks. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, T. M. 2006. The power of legitimacy and the legitimacy of power. American Journal of International Law, 100(1), 88–106.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. & Rodley, N. S. 1973. After Bangladesh: The law of humanitarian intervention by military force. American Journal of International Law, 67(2), 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, T. M. & Weisband, E. 1972. Word Politics: Verbal Strategy among the Superpowers. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Franke, U. 2016. Proliferated Drones: A Perspective on Germany. Centre for a New American Security. https://drones.cnas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/A-Perspective-on-Germany-Proliferated-Drones.pdf.Google Scholar
Franke, U. 2017. The Unmanned Revolution: How Drones Are Revolutionising Warfare. D Phil, University of Oxford. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:ab40b722-2613-478a-912c-5b06307a3435.Google Scholar
Green, J. A. 2009. The International Court of Justice and Self-defence in International Law. Bloomsbury: London.Google Scholar
Gregory, T. 2017. Civilian casualties, non-combatant immunity and the politics of killing: Review essay. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 10(1), 187–96.Google Scholar
Hathaway, O. 2019. Turkey is violating international law: It took lessons from the U.S. The Washington Post, 22 October. www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/22/turkey-is-violating-international-law-it-took-lessons-us/.Google Scholar
Hathaway, O. A. & Shapiro, S. J. 2018. The Internationalists: And Their Plan to Outlaw War. Penguin Books: London.Google Scholar
Heller, J. K. 2019. The earliest invocation of the unwilling or unable. OpinoJuris, 19 March. http://opiniojuris.org/2019/03/19/the-earliest-invocation-of-unwilling-or-unable/.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, D. C. 2002. Toward universal empire: The dangerous quest for absolute security. World Policy Journal, 19(3), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henkin, L. 1979. How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy. Columbia University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Holland, J. 2020. Selling War and Peace: Syria and the Anglosphere. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hurd, I. 2017a. How to Do Things with International Law. Princeton University Press: Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, I. 2017b. The permissive power of the ban on war. European Journal of International Security, 2(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Hurrell, A. 2007. On Global Order: Power, Values and the Constitution of International Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. H. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Jennings, R. Y. 1938. The Caroline and McLeod cases. American Journal of International Law, 32(1), 82–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, I. 2003. Security council deliberations: The power of the better argument. European Journal of International Law, 14(3), 437–80.Google Scholar
Kaempf, S. 2018. Saving Soldiers or Civilians: Casualty-Aversion versus Civilian Protection in Asymmetric Conflicts. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Keating, V. C. 2022. Membership has its privileges: Targeted killing norms and the firewall of international society. International Studies Quarterly, 66(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac040.Google Scholar
Kelly, F. 2020. Sahel coalition: G5 and France agree new joint command, will prioritize fight against Islamic state. The Defense Post, 14 January. www.thedefensepost.com/2020/01/14/sahel-coalition-france-g5-islamic-state/.Google Scholar
Kitties, O. F. 2016. Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. 2002. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. 2005. International law in Europe: Between tradition and renewal. The European Journal of International Law, 16(1), 113–24.Google Scholar
Kreps, S. E. 2014. Flying under the radar: A study of public attitudes towards unmanned aerial vehicles. Research & Politics, 1(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreps, S. E. 2016. Drones: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreps, S. & Lushenko, P. 2023. Drones in modern war: Evolutionary, revolutionary, or both? Defense and Security Analysis, 15(3), 271–4.Google Scholar
Kreps, S. E. & Wallace, G. P. 2016. International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes. Journal of Peace Research, 53(6), 830–44.Google Scholar
Lobel, J. & Ratner, M. 1999. Bypassing the security council: Ambiguous authorizations to use force, cease-fires and the Iraqi inspection regime. American Journal of International Law, 93(1), 124–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lushenko, P., Bose, S., & Maley, W. (eds.). 2022a. Drones and Global Order: Implications of Remote Warfare for International Society. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Lushenko, P., Raman, S., & Kreps, S. 2022b. Multilateralism and public support for drone strikes. Research & Politics, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221093433.Google Scholar
Lynch, C. 2013. France’s U.N. envoy: French military intervention in Mali is open ended. Foreign Policy, 12 January. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/01/12/frances-u-n-envoy-french-military-intervention-in-mali-is-open-ended/.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J. 2017. Enemies Known and Unknown: Targeted Killings in America’s Transnational Wars. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Mignot-Mahdavi, R. 2020. Le Silence des Agneaux: France’s war against Jihadist groups. ICCT Journal, Research Paper, May 2020. https://icct.nl/publication/le-silence-des-agneaux-frances-war-against-jihadist-groups-and-associated-legal-rationale/.Google Scholar
Mignot-Mahdavi, R. 2023. Drones and International Law: A Techno-Legal Machinery. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milanovic, M. 2020. The Soleimani strike and self-defence against an imminent armed attack. EJIL: Talk! 7 January. www.ejiltalk.org/the-soleimani-strike-and-self-defence-against-an-imminent-armed-attack.Google Scholar
Mills, C. 2017. ISIS/Daesh: The Military Response in Iraq and Syria. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, Number 06995, 8 March. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06995/SN06995.pdf.Google Scholar
Morgenthou, F, H. J. 1967. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.Google Scholar
Moyn, S. 2021. Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux: New York.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D. 2005. The doctrine of preemptive self-defense. Villanova Law Review, 50(3), 699–748.Google Scholar
O’Connell, M. E. 2011. Remarks: The resort to drones under international law. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 39(4), 585–600.Google Scholar
O’Connell, M. E. 2020. The killing of Soleimani and international law. EJIL: Talk! 6 January. www.ejiltalk.org/the-killing-of-soleimani-and-international-law/.Google Scholar
Peevers, C. 2013. The Politics of Justifying Force: The Suez Crisis, the Iraq War, and International Law. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pompeo, M. 2020. Secretary of State Pompeo Interviewed on Fox and Friends. US Department of State. www.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-with-steve-doocy-ainsley-earhardt-and-brian-kilmeade-of-fox-and-friends/.Google Scholar
Recchia, S. & Thierry, T. 2020. French military actions in Africa: Reluctant multilateralism. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43(4), 473–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, C. (ed.). 2004. The Politics of International Law. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, B. 2018. The World as It Is: Inside the Obama White House. Bodley Head: London.Google Scholar
Sands, P. 2005. Lawless World: America and the Breaking of Global Rules. Allen Lane: London.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, W. E. 1999. Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Roman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Schmidt, D. R. & Trenta, L. 2018. Changes in the law of self-defence? Drones, imminence, and international norm dynamics. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 5(2), 201–45.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. 2000. The situation on the international legal front: The power of rules and the rule of power. European Journal of International Law, 11(2), 439–64.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. 2004. Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q. 1974. Some problems in the analysis of political thought and action. Political Theory, 2(3), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q. 1988. A reply to my critics. In Tully, J. (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Polity Press: Cambridge, 231–89.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J. 1970. THE CAMBODIAN INCURSION: United States notifies U.N. Security Council. International Legal Materials, 9(4), 838–71.Google Scholar
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. 2021. Human Rights: Drone Warfare. www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war.Google Scholar
The Independent International Commission on Kosovo. 2000. The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learnt. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/6D26FF88119644CFC1256989005CD392-thekosovoreport.pdf.Google Scholar
Trenta, L. 2018. The Obama administration’s conceptual change: Imminence and the legitimation of targeted killings. European Journal of International Security, 3(1), 69–93.Google Scholar
Verdier, P. H. & Voeten, E. 2015. How does customary international law change? The case of state immunity. International Studies Quarterly, 59(2), 209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilmer, J. B. J. 2015. When France arms its drones. National Defence Review, 96–101. www.jbjv.com/IMG/pdf/JBJV_2015_-_When_France_Arms_Its_Drones.pdf.Google Scholar
Vilmer, J. B. J. 2017. The French turn to armed drones. War on the Rocks: Texas National Security Review, 22 September. https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/the-french-turn-to-armed-drones/.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. 2014. Understanding Operation Barkhane. African Defence Review, 1 August. www.africandefence.net/operation-barkhane-under-the-hood.Google Scholar
Wheeler, N. J. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Wheeler, N. J. 2003. The Bush doctrine: The dangers of American exceptionalism in a revolutionary age. Asian Perspective, 27(4), 183–216.Google Scholar
Wheeler, N. J. 2004. The Kosovo bombing campaign. In Reus-Smit, C. (ed.), The Politics of International Law. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 198–217.Google Scholar
Yoo, J. 2003. International law and the War in Iraq. The American Journal of International Law, 97(3), 563–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 8
- Cited by