In a response to my previous post, Professor Timothy Waters, asks why it is that US attacks on non-State actors in Pakistan would not be acts of war against Pakistan. In this post, I attempt to answer that question. First, we can't impute al Qaeda or Taliban attacks on our soldiers, which are continuous and well-known, to Pakistan merely because Pakistan is incapable of policing its territory. Pakistan would have "state responsibility" (but not "imputation" or "attribution" [see Nicaragua v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J.]) - so Pakistan could be subject to sanctions not involving the use of armed force if Pakistan financed or even tolerated such attacks (according to the 1970 UN General Assembly Dec. Principles of International Law, etc., and Nicaragua v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J.) unless Pakistan had effective control over al Qaeda or Taliban operations or later adopted them as its own (U.S. v. Iran, 1980 I.C.J.) -- none of which has happened to my knowledge. I suppose we agree on this. Second, Professor Waters asks whether by merely using…
Self Defence
Page 22 of 22
The United States’ Use of Drones in Pakistan
Editors Note: We feature below a discussion between a group of leading United States academics on the US's targeting of Taliban and Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan. Each of the discussants is a leading writer on international law, and on the use of force in particular. We are delighted to post this discussion on EJIL:Talk! As usual, readers are invited to post…
Humanitarian intervention: neither right, nor responsibility, but necessity?
I'd like to offer a small "think piece" contribution to a bigger debate, in which I try and tease out a question that has troubled me: do we need a positive right of humanitarian intervention? What would happen if we conceded it was prima facie an unlawful use of force, but was legally (not just morally) justifiable or…
- First
- Page 22 of 22