Abstract
Large unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e., drones) equipped with missiles and bombs or battle-equipped have progressively become the newest wave in “warfare.” We argue that the use of drones for targeted assassinations is merely a new technological tool for state violence that is increasingly becoming a regular exercise of the US power in the construction and reification of the broader social geopolitical order. Further, it is through law, domestic and international, that state violence, wars and the use of drones for targeted assassinations are legitimated and are a normality, and continuation of, the political management of the state. Taken with the core of humanitarian law that legitimates war and state violence, we suggest that the use of drones can be interpreted within the body of legislation, political discourse, and laws that serve to normalize and legitimize their use: no different than such processes that occurred with the technological advances that offered military tanks, aerial bombing, projectile missiles or even nuclear and chemical weapons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We acknowledge that this is a subject that has merited a lot of legal commentaries and articles and as such we briefly provide an overview of the topic to highlight the importance of state violence through law rather than in spite of law or in impunity. For more detailed discussion see de Siqueira (2013), Mégret (2006), Kennedy (2006), Schmidt (2005) and Berman (2004). For a fundamental yet not so recent work see Jochnick and Normand (1994a, b).
For a detailed discussion of states of emergency, see Neocleous (2006). The Problem with Normality: Taking Exception to “Permanent Emergency.” Alternatives Global, Local Political 31(2): 191–213.
Note here that although Awlaki propagated the use of violence against the US, the Obama administration failed to successfully link Awlaki to the attacks on New York (see Carter 2011).
Note that this appears contrary to the findings in the al-Awlaki case, however, the language in the Awlaki case speaks of an “active” not “imminent” threat and therefore, an argument can be made that they are indeed different criteria.
References
Agamben, G. (1995). Homo sacer. Sovereign power and bare life (trans: Heller-Roazen, D.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception (trans: Attell, K.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama (2010). 727 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010). Resource document: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/post-911-era-materials/post-911-era-materials-court-cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-727-f-supp-2d-1-d-d-c-2010/. Accessed 11 Nov 2013.
Anonymous Reviewer. (2014). Personal comment by reviewer to authors during submission and review process of this article.
Arkin, R. C. (2010). The case for ethical autonomy in unmanned systems. Journal of Military Ethics, 9(4), 332–341.
Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2001). Authorization for use of military force: Document number S.J.Res. 23–107th congress. www.GovTrack.us. Resource document: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres2. Accessed 27 Nov 2013.
Baker v. Carr (1962). 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962). Resource document http://www.lawnix.com/cases/baker-carr.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
Bergen, P., & Tiedemann, K. (2010). The year of the drone: An analysis of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, 2004–2010. New America foundation. Resource document: http://files.embedit.in/embeditin/files/Htf2KsmZrj/1/file.pdf Accessed 11 May 2013.
Berman, N. (2004). Privileging combat? Contemporary conflict and the legal construction of war. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43(1), 1–71.
Best, G. (1991). The restraint of war in historical and philosophical perspective. In J. Astrid, M. Delissen, & G. J. Tanja (Eds.), Humanitarian law of armed conflict: Challenges ahead: Essays in honor of Frits Kalshoven (p. 20). The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Bowcott, O. (2013). Drone strikes by US may violate international law, says UN. The guardian. Resource document: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/drone-strikes-us-violate-law-un. Accessed 24 Oct 2013.
Carter, T. (2011). The legal implications of the al-Awlaki assassination. World socialist website. Resource document: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/awla-o10.html. Accessed 1 Nov 2013.
Cole, C. (2013). First British Drone strike carried out from UK RAF Waddington. Resource document: http://dronewars.net/2013/05/01/first-british-drone-strike-carried-out-from-uk-raf-waddington/. Accessed 20 Aug 2013.
Collins English Dictionary. (2014). Casuistry. Collins English dictionary online. Resource document: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/casuistry. Accessed 7 Jan 2014.
Degenhardt, T. (2013). The overlap between war and crime: Unpacking Foucault and Agamben’s studies within the context of the war on terror. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 5(2), 29–58.
Department of Justice White Papers. (2011). Lawfulness of a lethal operation directed against a U.S. citizen who is senior operational leader of Al-Qa’ida or an associated force: Document Number 20413. US department of justice. Resource document: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2013.
de Siqueira, L. P. (2013). There is nothing “humanitarian” about international humanitarian law. Resource document: http://www.academia.edu/3493139/There_is_Nothing_Humanitarian_About_International_Humanitarian_Law. Accessed 17 Nov 2013.
Emmerson, B. (2013). Quoted in Bowcott, O. (2013). Drone strikes by US may violate international law, says UN. The guardian. Resource document: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/drone-strikes-us-violate-law-un. Accessed 24 Oct 2013.
Ford, J. C. (1944). The morality of obliteration bombing. Theological Studies, 5, 261–309.
Foreign and Military Intelligence. (1976). Final report of the select committee to study governmental operations with respect to intelligence activities, (94th Congress, 2d sess., 1976, S. Rept. 755). Resource document: https://ia600400.us.archive.org/18/items/finalreportofsel01unit/finalreportofsel01unit.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2013.
Foucault, M. (2003). The Essential Foucault: Selections from the essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984. New York, NY: The New Press.
Friedman, U. (2012). Targeted killings: A short history: How America came to embrace assassination. Foreign policy. Resource document: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/targeted_killings. Accessed 16 Nov 2013.
Goldsmith, J. (2011). Heller on the Yamamoto Precendent. Lawfare, hard national security choices. Resource document: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/10/heller-on-the-yamamoto-precedent/. Accessed 11 Nov 2013.
Gregory, D. (2011). The everywhere war. The Geographical Journal, 177(3), 238–250.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Heller, K. J. (2013). One hell of a killing machine. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 11(1), 89–119.
Holder, E. (2012).Attorney general eric holder speaks at Northwestern University Law School. The United States department of justice. Resource document: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1203051.html. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.
Human Rights Institute. (2011). Targeting operations with Drone technology: Humanitarian law implications. Background note for the American society of international law annual meeting. Columbia law school. Resource document: http://www.law.columbia.edu/ipimages/Human_Rights_Institute/BackgroundNoteASILColumbia.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2013.
International Committee for the Red Cross. (2012). State parties and signatories—by Treaties, Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. ICRC treaty database. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?OpenView. Accessed 7 Oct 2013.
Jochnick, C., & Normand, R. (1994a). The legitimation of violence: A critical history of the laws of war. Harvard International Law Journal, 35(1), 49–80.
Jochnick, C., & Normand, R. (1994b). The legitimation of violence: A critical analysis of the Gulf War. Harvard International Law Journal, 35(1), 49–91.
Johnson, J. (2012). Jeh Johnson’s speech on “National security law, lawyers and layering in the obama administration”. Council on foreign relations. Resource document: http://www.cfr.org/defense-and-security/jeh-johnsons-speech-national-security-law-lawyers-lawyering-obama-administration/p27448. Accessed 23 Oct 2013.
Keeva, S. (1991). Lawyers in the war room. ABA Journal. Dec 52–59.
Kennedy, D. (2006). Of war and law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kennedy, D. (2009). Modern war and modern law: Presentation. The Suffolk transnational law review distinguished speaker series. Boston, MA: Suffolk Law School.
Knoops, G. A. (2012). Legal, political and ethical dimensions of Drone warfare under international law: A preliminary survey. International Criminal Law Review, 12(4), 697–720.
Koh, H. (2010). The Obama administration and international law. United States department of state. Resource document: http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm. Accessed 27 May 2013.
Kramer, R. C. (2009). Resisting the bombing of civilians: Challenges from a public criminology of state crime. Social Justice, 36(3), 78–97.
Lewis, M. W. (2012). Drones and the boundaries of the battlefield. Texas International Law Journal, 47(2), 293–314.
Lotrionte, C. (2003). When to target leaders. The Washington Quarterly, 26(3), 73–86.
Lubell, N. (2010). Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mégret, F. (2006). From ‘Savages’ to ‘Unlawful Combatants’: A postcolonial look at international law’s ‘other’. In A. Orford (Ed.), International law and its others (pp. 265–317). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Neocleous, M. (2006). The problem with normality: Taking exception to “permanent emergency”. Alternatives Global, Local Political, 31(2), 191–213.
Obama, B. (2011) Letter from President Barack Obama, President, United States of America, to the Citizens of the United States of America. The White House. Resource document: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/counterterrorism_strategy.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2013.
Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918). 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Justia US Supreme Court. Resource document: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/246/297/case.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2013.
Philip, A. (2009). UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Philip Alston: Record AfPAk drone attacks under Obama may violate international law. Democracy now. Resource document: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/28/un_special_rapporteur_on_extrajudicial_killings. Accessed 27 May 2013.
Protocols I additional to the Geneva Convention. (1977). Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. The ICRC resource center. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4&action=openDocument. Accessed 11 Nov 2013.
Protocols II additional to the Geneva Convention. (1977). Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977. The ICRC resource center. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=AA0C5BCBAB5C4A85C12563CD002D6D09&action=openDocument. Accessed 11 Nov 2013.
Protocols III additional to the Geneva Convention. (2005). Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem (Protocol III), 8 December 2005. The ICRC resource center. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=8BC1504B556D2F80C125710F002F4B28&action=openDocument. Accessed 11 Nov 2013.
Radsan, A. J., & Murphy, R. (2012). The evolution of law and policy for CIA targeted killing. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 5(2), 439–463.
Savage, C. (2011). Secret U.S. memo made legal case to kill a citizen. International New York Times: Middle East, Resource document: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed 17 Nov 2013.
Schmidt, M. N. (2005). War, technology and international humanitarian law. Harvard University Occasional Paper, Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research. Summer(4). Resource document: http://www.hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/OccasionalPaper4.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2013.
Schmitt, M. N. (1998). Bellum Americanum: The U.S. view of twenty-first century war and its possible implications for the law of armed conflict. Michigan Journal of International Law, 19, 1051–1090.
Sharkey, N. (2010). Saying ‘No!’ to lethal autonomous targeting. Journal of Military Ethics, 9(4), 369–383.
Smith, T. W. (2002). The new law of war: Legitimizing hi-tech and infrastructural violence. International Studies Quarterly, 46(3), 355–374.
Teitel, R. G. (2011). Humanity’s law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
The Geneva Conventions. (1949). Conventions I, II, III, IV. ICRC treaty database. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?OpenView. Accessed 7 Oct 2013.
The Hague Conventions. (1899). Convention (II) with respect to the laws and customs of war on land and its annex: Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land. The Hague, 29 July 1899. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=CD0F6C83F96FB459C12563CD002D66A1&action=openDocument. Accessed 28 Nov 2013.
The Hague Conventions. (1907). Convention (IV) respecting the laws and customs of war on land and its annex: Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land. The Hague, 18 October 1907. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=4D47F92DF3966A7EC12563CD002D6788&action=openDocument. Accessed 28 Nov 2013.
The Hague Conventions. (1907). Convention (VIII) relative to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines. The Hague, 18 October 1907. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=7D389CA23C22337BC12563CD002D67FF&action=openDocument. Accessed 28 Nov 2013.
The Hague Conventions. (1907). Convention (IX) concerning bombardment by naval forces in time of war. The Hague, 18 October 1907. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=F13F9FFC628FC33BC12563CD002D6819&action=openDocument. Accessed 29 Nov 2013.
The Hague Conventions. (1972). Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=BACF97285A9CB2A2C12563CD002D6C88&action=openDocument. Accessed 29 Nov 2013.
The Hague Conventions. (1995). Protocol on blinding laser weapons (protocol IV to the 1980 convention 13 October 1995). Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=70D9427BB965B7CEC12563FB0061CFB2&action=openDocument. Accessed 28 Nov 2013.
The Hague Declarations. (1899–1925). Methods and means of warfare. Resource document: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/. Accessed 28 Nov 2013.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. (2004). Public Law 108-458—108th congress. 17 Dec 2004. Resource document: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ458/pdf/PLAW-108publ458.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2013.
The Patriot Act. (2001). Uniting and strengthening American by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001. Resource document: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.
The Patriot Act. (2005). USA PATRIOT improvement and reauthorization act of 2005. www.GovTrack.us. Resource document: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr3199. Accessed 29 Nov 2013.
The Rome Statute. (1998). The Rome statute of the international criminal court. Resource document: http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
The Terrorist Elimination Act. (2001). Terrorist elimination act of 2001. www.GovTrack.us. Resource document: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr19. Accessed 29 Nov 2013.
The United Nations Charter. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. Resource document: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.
The United Nations Charter. (1998). Charter of the United Nations. Resource document: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
The White House. (2013a). Fact Sheet: U.S. policy standards and procedures for the use of force in counterterrorism operations outside the United States and areas of active hostilities. The White House office of the press secretary. Resource document http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/fact-sheet-us-policy-standards-and-procedures-use-force-counterterrorism. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.
The White House. (2013b). Press briefing by press secretary Jay Carney, 2/5/13. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. Resource document: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/05/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-2513. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
Thynne, K. (2009). Targeting the ‘Terrorist Enemy’: The boundaries of and armed conflict against transnational terrorists. Australian International Law Journal, 16, 161–171.
United States Foreign Intelligence Activities. (1976). Executive order 11905 (2-305). Weekly compilation of presidential documents. Resource document: https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo11905.htm. Accessed 25 Nov 2013.
United States Foreign Intelligence Activities. (1978). Executive Orders 12036. Weekly compilation of presidential documents. Resource document https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12036.htm. Accessed 25 Nov 2013.
United States Foreign Intelligence Activities. (1981). Executive order 12333. Weekly compilation of presidential documents. Resource document: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2013.
United Nations General Assembly. (2013). Promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism: Document number A/68/389 (18 Sept 2013). The United Nations. Resource document: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2F68%2F389&Submit=Search&Lang=E. Accessed 21 Nov 2013.
United Nations Security Council. (2001). Resolution 1368 (2001) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4370th meeting, on 12 Sept 2001: Document number S/RES/1368 (2001). Resource document: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1368(2001). Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
United Nations Security Council. (2001). Resolution 1373 (2001) Adopted by the security council at its 4385th meeting, on 28 September 2001: Document number S/RES/1373 (2001). Resource document: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1373(2001). Accessed 13 Nov 2013.
Watt, D. C. (1979). Restraints on war in the air before 1945. In M. Howard (Ed.), Restraints on war: Studies in the limitation of armed conflict (pp. 57–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wall, T., & Monahan, T. (2011). Surveillance and violence from afar: The politics of drones and liminal security scapes. Theoretical Criminology, 15(3), 239–254.
Wittes, B. (2011). Not engaging with he who must not be named. Lawfare, hard national security choices. Resource document: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/09/3385/. Accessed 20 Nov 2013.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments and suggestions. They have helped make this piece stronger. We also would like to thank Jeffrey Ian Ross for previous research he and one of the authors have carried out aiding in this piece. We thank Travis Linneman as well for feedback on earlier drafts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The Collins English Dictionary (2014) defines casuistry as the use of clever or sophisticated reasoning/interpretation to rationalize and justify in a misleading way.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rothe, D.L., Collins, V.E. The Normality of Political Administration and State Violence: Casuistry, Law, and Drones. Crit Crim 22, 373–388 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-014-9234-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-014-9234-7