Law Commons^™

Is Jus In Bello In Crisis?, Jens David Ohlin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

It is a truism that new technologies are remaking the tactical and legal landscape of armed conflict. While such statements are undoubtedly true, it is important to separate genuine trends from scholarly exaggeration. The following essay, an introduction to the Drone Wars symposium of the Journal, catalogues today’s most pressing disputes regarding international humanitarian law (IHL) and their consequences for criminal responsibility. These include: (i) the triggering and classification of armed conflicts with non-state actors; (ii) the relative scope of IHL and international human rights law in asymmetrical conflicts; (iii) the targeting of suspected terrorists under concept- or status-based classifications …

Notice And An Opportunity To Be Heard Before The President Kills You, Richard Murphy, Afsheen John Radsan

Faculty Scholarship

The United States identifies particular people as especially dangerous members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, and then kills them. Critics insist that this targeted killing is illegal; some go so far as to call it assassination. The drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, generated furious criticism for purportedly violating his due process rights.

In spring 2013, President Obama responded in a wide-ranging speech on national security policy. On the topic of drones, he stated that terrorists are targeted only if they constitute “a continuing and imminent threat to the American people.” He announced that …

Drones And Cognitive Dissonance, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

There’s something about drones that makes sane people crazy. Is it those lean, futurist profiles? The activities drone technologies enable? Or perhaps it’s just the word itself–drone–a mindless, unpleasant, dissonant thrum. Whatever the cause, drones seem to produce an unusual kind of cognitive dissonance in many people.

Some demonize drones, denouncing them for causing civilian deaths or enabling long-distance killing, even as they ignore the fact that the same (or worse) could be said of many other weapons delivery systems. Others glorify them as a low-cost way to “take out terrorists,” despite the strategic vacuum in which most …