Drone Strikes In Pakistan Research Articles

Legal Defense of US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Through the Prism of US Laws

The US drone policy of targeted killings after 9/11 as part of its counter-terrorism efforts in Pakistan’s tribal areas has raised major serious concerns, particularly legal issues. This paper attempts to assess how US Laws defend drone strikes. US Congressional Order 1973, AUMF and its national self-defence right have mainly been focused on. The study is qualitative in nature and based on secondary sources. The results indicated the US approach to be based solely on its domestic laws and realist thinking. This indifferent legal analysis by the US is not acceptable for other legal regimes and requires certain modifications.Therefore the study recommends that rather than relying on a single state law the other legal circles and stakeholders may be given due share in deciding and finally adopting a well established international legal framework for drones. Only a consensus-based legal system can make drone use more effective in future wars.

US drone strikes, securitization processes and practices: A case study of Pakistan

ABSTRACT This article explores the importance of inter-related securitisation processes on each other, most notably the impact of securitisation practices in one country on the securitisation processes in another. It analyses the impact of US drone strikes on the securitisation processes related to the militancy conducted by successive Pakistani governments in the aftermath of 9/11. The successful securitisation of the war on terror by the US allowed the latter to take extraordinary measures to eliminate terrorism, most notably through the use of drone strikes. However, these securitisation practices inhibited the securitisation of militancy inside Pakistan. While we understand successful securitisation processes, we understand much less about unsuccessful securitisation cases. This article analyses the use of drone strikes as securitisation practices by the US and their impact on the unsuccessful securitisation process of militancy in Pakistan after 9/11. The empirical contribution of this article is its focus on the case of Pakistan where more than 400 drone strikes took place, reportedly killing approximately 7000 people. The article demonstrates how the drone strikes in Pakistan turned the war on terror into an American war and made it difficult for the domestic audience in Pakistan to accept the securitisation moves of the security actors.

Gone with the wind: The consequences of US drone strikes in Pakistan

Abstract Employing day-to-day wind conditions as an identification strategy, we explore the consequences of the 420 US drone strikes in Pakistan between 2006 and 2016. Results suggest that drone strikes encourage terrorism over the upcoming days and weeks, causing up to 19% of all terror attacks with more than 3,000 terror deaths in Pakistan during that period. Studying a leading Pakistani newspaper, we identify a polarised response to drone strikes as negative emotions and anger, but also positive emotions, in drone-related articles increase. Finally, anti-US protests and online searches exhibiting radical Islamist concepts increase as a consequence of drone strikes.

Media Framing of US Drone Policy in the National Press of Pakistan

United States drone policy has been fiercely debated both in the mediated and popular discourse in Pakistan. Despite the prevalence of the academic literature on drones, little is known hitherto how the elite- oriented press framed the US drone attacks in Pakistan. To that end this study informed by the framing paradigm, qualitatively analyzed the editorial genres of national press of Pakistan. The analysis identified four major frames or ‘interpretive packages’ the press used to construct the discourse on US drones namely sovereignty violation frame, collateral damage frame, connivance frame, and blowback frame. The findings suggest that drone strikes in Pakistan are represented unfavorably with an overall negative tone toward the drone strikes and the United States and its policies in the region. The discussion elaborates on the possible factors which contributed for the emergence of new frames in the context of Pakistani media

Impacts of the ‘War on Terror’ on the (De-)Humanization of Christians in Pakistan: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Media Reporting

ABSTRACTReligious minorities have been persecuted in Pakistan since the country’s creation in 1947. However, the rise of Islamization in the 1970s and 1980s added to the intensity of discrimination, prejudice and violence against religious minorities. Widespread structural violence meant that religious minorities experience marginalization and violation of their civil rights. As witnessed around the world, the 9/11 terrorist attacks changed global dynamics, with negative effects on Muslim–Christian relations. Since the onset of the US-led war in Afghanistan and drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas, there has been a rise in anti-American/anti-Western sentiment among Pakistani Muslims. Consequently, some extremist groups view local Christians with suspicion, labelling them Western agents. While the backlash against the US-led war in Afghanistan is seen as a major factor behind violence against Christians, deep-rooted socio-economic dynamics also contribute to the vulnerability of Christians and other religious minorities. Drawing on statements from two prominent Pakistani newspapers, this research employed critical discourse analysis and the framework of (de-)humanization to examine changes in newspaper reporting about Christians before and after 9/11, finding that there was a decrease rather than an increase in the level of dehumanization of Christians after 9/11, and an increase in humanization compared to pre-9/11 reporting.

UNITED STATES’ UNLAWFUL DRONE STRIKES AND DAMAGES CAUSED TO HUMANITY: A CASE STUDY OF PAKISTAN

This paper contributes significantly through suggestions to overcome the problem created by the disastrous US drone strikes in Pakistan. This paper evaluates incidences of the United States’ combat drone strikes in Pakistan and the damage caused to innocent people. It seeks to determine possible violations of international laws and the extent to which these strikes diminish the sovereignty of Pakistan. After the incident of 9/11, the use of combat drones in armed conflicts among states, non-state actors, disruptive groups and organisations has increased and expanded. Combat drones are controlled by operators who depend for their primary sources of information on cameras and sensors to determine their targets. Drone strikes lack identification processes causing many innocent people to be killed or injured. Drone strikes launched in non-conflict areas also increase the concerns about illegitimate interference in a state’s territorial sovereignty and violations of international laws. It covers the following questions. What are the basic principles about the use of force? What kinds of damages are caused by US drone strikes in Pakistan that violate basic human rights principles? What are the concerns of international organisations about drone strikes in Pakistan? Summarily, it covers the United States unlawful drone strikes in Pakistan and damages caused to humanity. The paper uses doctrinal qualitative analysis to situate the research within the ethical, legal and social parameters of the related statutes of international law. The research methodology adopted is evaluative, interpretive and analytical. The paper consists of 8 segments: (1) drones and the United States armed forces, (2) some basic international law principles about the use of force, (3) possible human rights violations, (4) US drone strikes diminish the sovereignty of Pakistan, (5) demands for transparency, (6) the damages caused to humanity by the drone strikes, (7) concerns of international organisations about illegitimate drone strikes causing extra judicial killings and (8) some recommendations to regulate the use of combat drones. It demonstrates that international law does not regulate the use of combat drones in armed conflict and no considerable effort has been made to bring the use of combat drones under the rule of law. Furthermore, US drone strikes in Pakistan’s territory have been done without consensus, resulting in the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and the killing of innocent people.

Frontier justice: international law and ‘lawless’ spaces in the “War on Terror”

How does the discourse of international law facilitate extraterritorial state violence? This paper synthesizes insights from International Relations, comparative politics, and legal studies in order to explore how the sovereign foundations of international law may render “frontier territories” exceptionally vulnerable to external military intervention. I argue that international law’s focus on sovereignty constitutes frontier territories as “ambiguous,” which leads to discursive conflicts over how to define these spaces, what is considered “legal” and “illegal” action within them, and who gets to define their status. All of this creates a conducive environment for powerful international governments to denigrate frontier territories as “lawless,” by rhetorically constructing them as exceptional legal spaces that do not deserve the same protections as areas ordered by sovereign ideals. To illuminate this empirically, I conduct a discourse analysis of 16 distinct legal documents from the Obama White House, including internal memorandums and public speeches on the legal standing of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

THE US STRATEGY OF ARMED DRONE USAGE IN FIGHTING THE TALIBAN ELEMENTS IN PAKISTAN (2004-2016)

<p>Prior to the Trump’s presidency the US have performed as many as 400 armed drone strikes in Pakistan, killing approximately 3.000 terrorist targets including key leaders that hold important value to the organizations. More than a decade these attacks were performed, yet we have not seen the end of the terrorist and insurgent’s presence in Pakistan. This leads into a thought whether the attacks were effective or not. Therefore, this study aims to analyze, predominantly evaluating the use of the targeted killing strategy in this US counterterrorism effort. The study uses qualitative research method by using Robert A. Pape’s perspective in strategic effectiveness and David Galula’s counterinsurgency perspective. Those perspectives pointed out the cause of this situation is due to the inability of the attacked target set to trigger the destruction of the movement, the inability of the US to secure the ends, ways, and means of the operation which involve the dissociation between the population and the insurgents, their ability to forge proper cooperation with its local ally, and the un-favoring view of the local population toward its targeted killings practice has resulted in the infectivity of the strategy and a prolonged fight between the US and its opponent. In sum, it can be inferred that despite capable of eliminating numerous high-value targets the targeted killing strategy is deemed ineffective due to its inability to procure full destruction of its opponent and due to the inability of the US to secure the ends, ways, and means of the operation which would have increase the success of the strategy.</p>

CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan: History, Perception and Future

This report is a part of CRSS’s special publication series that focuses on perception and impact of drone strikes on security and counter-terrorism in Pakistan. The report discusses the background of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-operated US drone strikes in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), along with how the success of the first strike and the confusion surrounding it gave the US an unmanned option to target alleged terror heads in the region. Since the first strike in 2004 which targeted Taliban leader Nek Muhammad Wazir, the US has conducted over 400 strikes in various areas of FATA. These strikes on the one hand have resulted in the elimination of high profile targets, while on the other, have contributed to civilian casualties. There are conflicting opinions and sentiments on the issue both abroad and in Pakistan, with arguments that such strikes have led to a spike in extremism and terrorism in FATA. The primary survey conducted in this report suggests that drones remain a complex issue with competing narratives. There are also a significant number of respondents from FATA who believe that drones not only eliminate terrorists, but are also the least of three evils: military operations, Taliban and drones. Finally, the report recommends that if the government of Pakistan has a tacit drone deal with the US government and believes drones are effective in FATA, it needs to formulate an effective and clear narrative in order to give clarity.

International Media’s Take on Drone Strikes in Pakistan: Analysis of Newsweek, The Economist, and Time Magazines

International Media’s Take on Drone Strikes in Pakistan: Analysis of Newsweek, The Economist, and Time Magazines

Perception of Foreign Drone Strikes by Citizens: The Context of US Drone Strikes in Pakistan

Since the start of US drone strikes in 2004–2005, these remotely piloted drone aircraft have been a subject of discussions internationally, especially at the UN. Previous studies have reported the effectiveness of US drone strikes in countering terrorism, and large public support in Pakistan for such measures. Contrasting with previous work on the subject, this research found that sentiments of reprisal were aimed against the Pakistan government, its armed forces including anti-US and anti-NATO feelings. This is in addition to the existence of some negative attitudes against local extremists and terrorists as well.

From elite consumption to popular opinion: framing of the US drone program in Pakistani newspapers

The United States has conducted armed drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. While there has been some recent work on Pakistani public opinion about drones, there is very little research on how Pakistan’s media characterize the US drone program. This is an important gap in understanding the determinants of Pakistani popular perceptions of this program. Decades of research has shown that “news framing”, a process by which certain aspects of a complex concept are emphasized in political communications with others played down, influences individual cognition while forming political opinions. In this essay, we address this lacuna by assembling an unprecedented sample of editorials about the drone program from three English newspapers and one Urdu newspaper and analyzing the news frames within them. We next compare the trends in these news frames to public opinion data collected by Pew between the spring of 2009 and 2014. Initially, most Pakistanis were unaware of the drone program, media coverage of the program expanded as drone strikes increased in frequency. While Pakistanis became more cognizant of the US drone strikes, even by 2014 large minorities remained unaware. Pakistani public opinion strongly reflected the top media frames, particularly those that are negative. This is an important finding suggesting that newspaper editorials are a good barometer of Pakistani opinions despite the fact that only information elites rely upon newspapers for political information.

Reporting beyond the pale: UK news discourse on drones in Pakistan

ABSTRACTThis article on drone strikes in Pakistan offers a distinctive empirical case study for critical scholarship of counterterrorism. By asking how cosmopolitanism has developed through UK news discourse, it also provides a constructivist contribution to the literature on drones. I argue that UK news discourse is not cosmopolitan because it focuses on risk and places the Other beyond comprehension. US–UK networked counterterrorism operations have complicated accountability, and while a drive for certainty promoted more scrutiny of policy, news media outlets, academics and activists turned to statistical and visual genres of communication that have inhibited understanding of the Other.

Great-power Responsibility, Side-effect Harms and American Drone Strikes in Pakistan

ABSTRACTIn International Relations (IR), the actions of great powers are usually assessed through their direct effects. Great powers are generally considered to be responsible for the consequences of their actions if they intentionally caused them. Although there is discussion on “double-effects” and “side-effect harms” in the realms of philosophy and political sociology, these largely remain absent from the field of IR. This article bridges that gap by clarifying a set of yardsticks through which side-effect harms of great powers’ actions can be evaluated, including “capacity”, “historical precedent”, “voluntarism” and “unintentional causality”. These yardsticks are deduced through the Theory of Special Responsibilities, which combines elements of Constructivism and the English School. The theoretical framework presented is then applied to the case of American drone strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. A number of terrorists in FATA have relocated elsewhere within Pakistan to escape these strikes, subsequently harming individuals in new locations. The article asks: who bears responsibility for the harm brought to civilians by these dislocated terrorists? Analysis from the perspective of the theoretical framework, constructed and applied here, suggests that even if the US may claim not to have directly intended such an outcome, it still shares some responsibility for the harm to innocent civilians.

Sikander Ahmed Shah,International Law and Drone Strikes in Pakistan: The Legal and Socio-Political Aspects

Sikander Ahmed Shah,<i>International Law and Drone Strikes in Pakistan: The Legal and Socio-Political Aspects</i>

Consent and the use of force: an examination of ‘intervention by invitation’ as a basis for US drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen

Drone strikes are becoming a key feature of the United States' global military response to non-state actors, and it has been widely adduced that these strikes have been carried out with the consent of the host states in which such non-state actors reside. This article examines the degree to which assertions of consent (or ‘intervention by invitation’), provided as a justification for drone strikes by the United States in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, can be said to accord with international law. First the article provides a broad sketch of the presence of consent in international law. It then analyses in detail the individual elements of consent as provided by Article 20 of the International Law Commission Draft Articles of State Responsibility. These require that consent should be ‘valid’, given by the legitimate government and expressed by an official empowered to do so. These elements will be dealt with individually, and each in turn will be applied to the cases of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Finally, the article will examine the breadth of the exculpatory power of consent, and the extent to which it can preclude the wrongfulness of acts carried out in contravention of international law other than the prohibition of the use of force under Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations.

Arguments against Drone Warfare with a Focus on the Immorality of Remote Control Killing and "Deadly Surveillance"

Arguments against Drone Warfare with a Focus on the Immorality of Remote Control Killing and "Deadly Surveillance"

“Leashing the Dogs of War”: Towards a Modification of the Laws of Armed Conflict for the Regulation of the US Drone Strikes in Pakistan

“Leashing the Dogs of War”: Towards a Modification of the Laws of Armed Conflict for the Regulation of the US Drone Strikes in Pakistan

News Framing of the US Drone Program in Pakistani Newspapers: From Elite Discourse to Popular Opinion

The United States has conducted armed drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. Despite recent work on Pakistani public opinion about drones, there is very little research on how Pakistan’s media characterize the US drone program. This is an important gap in understanding the determinants of Pakistani popular beliefs about this program. Decades of research has shown that “news framing,” a process by which certain aspects of a complex concept are emphasized in political communications while others are played down, influences individual cognition while forming political opinions (Lecheler et al. 2015). In this essay, we address this lacuna by assembling an unprecedented sample of editorials about the drone program from three English newspapers and one Urdu newspaper and analyzing the news frames within them. We next compare the trends in these news frames to public opinion data collected by Pew between the spring of 2009 and 2014. Initially, most Pakistanis were unaware of the drone program, media coverage of the program expanded as drone strikes increased in frequency. While Pakistanis became more cognizant of the U.S. drone strikes, even by 2014 large minorities remained unaware. Pakistani public opinion strongly reflected the top media frames, particularly those that are negative. This is an important finding suggesting that newspaper editorials are a good barometer of Pakistani opinions despite the fact that only information elites rely upon newspapers for political information.

Decisions of British Courts during 2014 Involving Questions of Public or Private International Law

The claimant’s father was killed in a missile strike launched from a drone that was believed to have been operated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He sought permission to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court (Moses LJ and Simon J) refusing permission to apply for judicial review.1 In the event that permission were granted, the claimant sought a declaration that a UK national who kills a person in a drone strike in Pakistan is not entitled to rely on the defence of combatant immunity. Accordingly, when an officer of the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) passes intelligence on the location of an individual to US authorities for use in drone strikes in Pakistan, he/she may commit the offence of ‘encouraging or assisting in [murder]’ under section 44-46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA), as read with the jurisdictional provisions in section 52(2) and Schedule 4 of that Act. These provisions are ‘by no means straightforward’, but a plain reading suggests that an individual may be liable for encouraging or assisting an offence committed wholly or partly outside England and Wales: The claimant submitted (1) that on this construction of the SCA, which is supported by the authors of Simester & Sullivan’s Criminal Law,3 the question for the court is not whether the principal has actually committed an offence triable in England and Wales, but only whether ‘any conduct which the UK national is assisting would be within the jurisdiction of the English court if the notional principal were a UK national’;4and (2) neither the CIA nor GCHQ officers are entitled to combatant immunity, either because they are not combatants or because there is no international armed conflict in Pakistan between the US and those targeted by the drone strikes.5 The claimant accepted that in any individual case an official would not be guilty of an offence unless he had the requisite mens rea and the defence of reasonableness under section 50 SCA was not available, but contended that these issues ‘are not material for present purposes’ because the claim concerned the lawfulness of the Foreign Secretary’s policy and not the guilt of individual officials or the lawfulness of drone strikes under US law.6