“Float like a Butterfly, Sting like a Bee”: A Discussion of the Tolerance Limits for Drone Attacks Under the International Norm
Loading...
Date
2024-05-01
Authors
Kim, Jongho
Hwang, Junghoon
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Oregon School of Law
Abstract
After the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was attacked, an MQ-9 Reaper drone carried out the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force (Elite Army of Iranian Revolutionary Guard). Concerns have emerged about the legal issues related to drone attacks, a countermeasure against North Korea’s continued nuclear tests, and the theory of a preemptive strike against North Korea’s nuclear missile facilities. State agencies’ assaults or preemptive attacks against people or facilities that threaten the safety of a country are referred to as targeted attacks and are gaining attention as a new means of force in the international community, including the United Nations. Preemptive strikes based upon anticipatory self-defense are permitted only in proportion to the extent that the threat of an enemy’s attack is imminent and there is no other means of defense under international law. Since the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, it has been argued that the enemy’s ability and goals should be considered as more important criteria than the imminence of the attack. In the case of terrorist groups or rogue states that are developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), threats are difficult to detect in advance and can be devastating if overlooked, so mitigating the requirements for the imminent nature of the attack should virtually allow for prevention.
Description
80 pages
Keywords
International human rights law, Warfare, Targeted killing, Drones
Citation
25 Or. Rev. Int'l L. 179