The Sovereignty Dodge and the Responsibility to Control: Should the US Do What Pakistan Won't Do?1

Abstract

The killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was justified by the Obama administration as an act of self-defense. Proponents of an expanded notion of self-defense argue that sovereignty implies responsibility not only for the protection of human rights, but also for the provision of public goods more generally, including effective territorial control. States which are unable to control their territory frequently become safe havens for militants who threaten the security of other states. Pakistan is a paradigmatic case of a ‘sovereignty dodge’ who, in the eyes of the United States, has forfeited its sovereign right to non-interference because of its failure to live up to its responsibility to control. In this article I explore the legality of US strikes against militant targets in Pakistan. I conclude that while international jurisprudence continues to adhere to a conservative reading of the rules on the use of force, states themselves have interpreted the law on self-defense more broadly, evincing a desire to keep the rules as indeterminate as possible.