Rithvik Mathur delegate of the Russian FederationGeneral Assembly Legal committee Legality of Drone Strikes“If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war , ” Mahatma Gandhi 

The Russian Federation has and will always look for an effective solution that minimizes on casualties. That being said, the struggle against anti-state activism has never been free of collateral damage, with the technology we have at hand, there is no means to completely avoid collateral damage. Now before considering the Use of UCAVs in what the United States of America refers to as “the war on terror”, the Russian Federation has considered several international dispute resolutions.1. The oldest of which is the Caroline incident.

The American navy vessel, Caroline brought supplies to the “patriot army”, a non-state military organization whose purpose was to win Canada’s Independence, was destroyed by British forces while over American waters. The United States of America was not at war with the UK at that time nor did the Caroline attack British forces. They resolved part of the issue by defining self-defense as the instant, overwhelming reaction, leaving no moment for deliberation. The ‘self-defense” the United states claims is clearly not in line with this definition.

2. The Corfu Channel CaseAlthough it was Albania that was fined in this case, it is important that we note the ICJ rejected the British argument of self-defense. It was found that the British activity in territorial space without consent was illegal. It is important that we note that the British did not cause harm to non-combatants and there was little to no collateral damage. This judgment has added definition and clarity to the term ‘self-defense’ especially regarding the UN charter.

3. USA vs Nicaragua CaseThis case decided several important matters, such as:

a. by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;

b. by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, is in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;

c. by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory is in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;

d. by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

e. by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;

f. by producing in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law;

4. The armed activities on the territory of the Congo case

This establishes that while an armed attack on a state by a non-state military organization is deeply concerning, it does not constitute an aggression unless the act of sending them by or on the behalf of a state is imputable to that state. Clearly, no state has done such a regrettable act and therefore it is not, by definition an act of aggression.

5. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon

In this case the Security Council, refused to acknowledge Israel’s claims of self-defense. When taken in parallel to the situation in Pakistan, Lebanon which harbored what Israel recognized as anti-state actors is a situation much worse than having a cooperative government that has also been hurt by the anti-state factions. In the Israel-Lebanon situation, the SC choose not to recognize Israel’s claims, now when a permanent member has similar if not weaker claims why do we allow it to continue?

6. Article 2 Sub clause 4 of the UNC

Although drone strikes don’t technically is not targeted against territorial integrity or political independence it affects both. Pakistan would obviously change its stance on internal affairs based on drone strikes, it may not behave or pass certain laws it normally would have,

Now, all the aforementioned being said and done, we still have to deal with NSMOs, but drone strikes are not the way. If one your neighbor’s dog persists in defecating on your front lawn, would you build work on keeping it out or would you chase down all of the dogs in the neighborhood with a stick?

The signature strikes reduce the efficiency and increase collateral damage, the more devastating weapons such as the Hellfire missiles are far more devastating and often end up killing only civilians. The double tap policy, if executed, is a war crime according to Christof Heyns a United Nations Special Rapporteur. A recent trend seen in anti-state factions is living in cities, where drone strikes are not conducted. To elucidate Osama Bin laden was found 68 miles from Islamabad, in one of Pakistan’s most populous cities. Drone strikes are not a proportional responses seeing as there has not been an attack on United States soil by NSMO’s in the Middle East in over 13 years. They are inefficient, disproportional responses that violate the rights of Pakistan. Pakistani leaders, its high courts have all condemned drone strikes. They make martyrs out of murderers and on the whole do more damage than good. In the absence of ambrosia, should we consume toxins?