Död från ovan - En analys av USA:s rättfärdiganden för drönarkriget i Pakistan sedan år 2001
(2014) JURM02 20142Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Efter terroristattentaten den 11 september 2001 antog USA en policy som tillät USA:s president att använda allt nödvändigt och lämpligt våld för att undvika och förebygga framtida terroristattentat. Ett sätt att genomföra detta har varit med hjälp av obemannade flygfarkoster (UAVs) som vanligtvis benämns som drönare. Sedan år 2004 har USA använt drönare utrustade med missiler för att bekämpa Al-Qaida, Talibanrörelsen och liknande styrkor i Pakistan som en respons till terroristattentaten den 11 september. USA:s drönarprogram har kritiserats för att ha stridit mot internationell rätt och främst principen om en stats rätt till självförsvar (jus ad bellum) och krigets lagar (jus in bello).
Under president Barack Obamas presidentskap har... (More) - Efter terroristattentaten den 11 september 2001 antog USA en policy som tillät USA:s president att använda allt nödvändigt och lämpligt våld för att undvika och förebygga framtida terroristattentat. Ett sätt att genomföra detta har varit med hjälp av obemannade flygfarkoster (UAVs) som vanligtvis benämns som drönare. Sedan år 2004 har USA använt drönare utrustade med missiler för att bekämpa Al-Qaida, Talibanrörelsen och liknande styrkor i Pakistan som en respons till terroristattentaten den 11 september. USA:s drönarprogram har kritiserats för att ha stridit mot internationell rätt och främst principen om en stats rätt till självförsvar (jus ad bellum) och krigets lagar (jus in bello).
Under president Barack Obamas presidentskap har omfattningen och intensiteten av drönarattacker ökat i Pakistan. Det har ifrågasatts om USA verkligen deltar i en väpnad konflikt i Pakistan och med de grupper som var delaktiga i terroristattentaten den 11 september. Det har även diskuterats om den icke-internationella väpnade konflikten i Afghanistan har spridit sig över gränsen till Pakistan. För att utplåna Al-Qaida ledare och liknande styrkor i denna konflikt har USA med hjälp av CIA bedrivit en hemlig strategi där misstänkta individer som uppvisar ett liknande beteende som terrorister blir föremål för målinriktat dödande. Vad som försvårar bedömningen av dessa drönarattacker är att de har genomförts med Pakistans underförstådda samtycke och att Pakistan har tillhandahållit amerikanska militärbaser på pakistanskt territorium för genomförandet av amerikanska drönarattacker.
I takt med den teknologiska utvecklingen uppstår det rättsliga frågor angående huruvida användningen av beväpnade drönare är förenligt med internationell rätt. Uppsatsens syfte och utgångspunkt har varit att undersöka hur USA rättfärdigar sina drönarattacker i Pakistan och om dessa rättfärdiganden överensstämmer med internationell rätt. Uppsatsen har fokuserat på fyra olika uttalanden från amerikanska tjänstemän som alla rättfärdigar USA:s drönarattacker i Pakistan. Dessa fyra rättfärdiganden har utvidgat internationell rätt genom att bland annat åberopa ett globalt krig mot terrorismen. Slutsatsen av denna uppsats är att USA dels har utvidgat principen om rätten till självförsvar i artikel 51 FN-stadgan, dels att det är tveksamt huruvida USA deltar i en väpnad konflikt i Pakistan. (Less) - Abstract
- After the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001, the U.S. adopted a policy that allowed the U.S. President to use all necessary and appropriate force to avoid and prevent future terrorist attacks. One way they have accomplish this has been by the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly referred to as drones. Since 2004 the U.S. has used drones equipped with missiles to fight Al-Qaeda, the Taliban movement and similar forces in Pakistan in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September. The U.S. drone program has been criticized for being in breach of international law and particularly the principle of a state’s right to self-defense (jus ad bellum) and the laws of war (jus in bello).
The scale and intensity of drone... (More) - After the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001, the U.S. adopted a policy that allowed the U.S. President to use all necessary and appropriate force to avoid and prevent future terrorist attacks. One way they have accomplish this has been by the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly referred to as drones. Since 2004 the U.S. has used drones equipped with missiles to fight Al-Qaeda, the Taliban movement and similar forces in Pakistan in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September. The U.S. drone program has been criticized for being in breach of international law and particularly the principle of a state’s right to self-defense (jus ad bellum) and the laws of war (jus in bello).
The scale and intensity of drone strikes have increased in Pakistan during President Barack Obama’s presidency. It has been questioned whether the U.S. is actually involved in an armed conflict in Pakistan and with the groups that were involved in the terrorist attacks of 11 September. It has also been discussed whether the non-international armed conflict in Afghanistan has spread across the Pakistani border. In order to wipe out Al-Qaeda leaders and similar forces in this conflict, the U.S. has with the help of the CIA conducted a secret strategy in which suspected individuals that show a similar behavior as terrorists will be subject to a targeted killing. What complicates the assessment of these drone strikes is that they have been conducted with Pakistan’s tacit consent and that Pakistan has provided American military bases on Pakistani territory for the implementation of the U.S. drone strikes.
In pace with technological developments, legal issues arise regarding whether or not the use of armed drones is consistent with international law. The purpose and approach of this thesis has been to investigate how the U.S. justifies its drone strikes in Pakistan and if these justifications are in accordance with international law. This thesis has focused on four different statements by American officials that all justify the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. These four justifications have redefined international law by inter alia invoking a global war on terrorism. This thesis concludes that the U.S. has extended the principle of the right to self-defense in Article 51 of the UN Charter, and that it is doubtful whether or not the U.S. is participating in an armed conflict in Pakistan. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4905304
- author
- Kousha, Samira LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Death from Above - An Analysis of the U.S. Justifications for the Drone War in Pakistan Since 2001
- course
- JURM02 20142
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Folkrätt, Krigets lagar, Mänskliga rättigheter
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4905304
- date added to LUP
- 2015-04-14 14:28:05
- date last changed
- 2015-04-14 14:28:05
@misc{4905304,
abstract = {{After the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001, the U.S. adopted a policy that allowed the U.S. President to use all necessary and appropriate force to avoid and prevent future terrorist attacks. One way they have accomplish this has been by the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly referred to as drones. Since 2004 the U.S. has used drones equipped with missiles to fight Al-Qaeda, the Taliban movement and similar forces in Pakistan in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September. The U.S. drone program has been criticized for being in breach of international law and particularly the principle of a state’s right to self-defense (jus ad bellum) and the laws of war (jus in bello).
The scale and intensity of drone strikes have increased in Pakistan during President Barack Obama’s presidency. It has been questioned whether the U.S. is actually involved in an armed conflict in Pakistan and with the groups that were involved in the terrorist attacks of 11 September. It has also been discussed whether the non-international armed conflict in Afghanistan has spread across the Pakistani border. In order to wipe out Al-Qaeda leaders and similar forces in this conflict, the U.S. has with the help of the CIA conducted a secret strategy in which suspected individuals that show a similar behavior as terrorists will be subject to a targeted killing. What complicates the assessment of these drone strikes is that they have been conducted with Pakistan’s tacit consent and that Pakistan has provided American military bases on Pakistani territory for the implementation of the U.S. drone strikes.
In pace with technological developments, legal issues arise regarding whether or not the use of armed drones is consistent with international law. The purpose and approach of this thesis has been to investigate how the U.S. justifies its drone strikes in Pakistan and if these justifications are in accordance with international law. This thesis has focused on four different statements by American officials that all justify the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. These four justifications have redefined international law by inter alia invoking a global war on terrorism. This thesis concludes that the U.S. has extended the principle of the right to self-defense in Article 51 of the UN Charter, and that it is doubtful whether or not the U.S. is participating in an armed conflict in Pakistan.}},
author = {{Kousha, Samira}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Död från ovan - En analys av USA:s rättfärdiganden för drönarkriget i Pakistan sedan år 2001}},
year = {{2014}},
}