5 ms·

>Which international law address US use of force in Yemen? Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is the general framework prohibiting the use of force between member

>Which international law address US use of force in Yemen? Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is the general framework prohibiting the use of force between member States.[1] The UN Charter itself only provides for 2 exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force: a. Self-Defense and b. with prior authorization from the UN Security Council. However, much like the US Constitution, which has been interpreted and extended through legislation and through the Courts, the UN Charter has been interpreted through treaties, UN Resolutions, votes of the UN Security Council, case studies and customary law/international norms. To put this in context, put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine a foreign national located in the US, who has been deemed a terrorist or equivalent by another country, and that country performs some kind of military/quasi-military/drone strike within the jurisdictional integrity of the US. Separately, there is an entire second half to the analysis, so once the use of force is authorized (jus ad bellum), then we need to apply the actual laws of war (jus in bello). The easiest way to convey this is to say that the response must be proportionate to the act that authorized the use of force and otherwise use of certain weapons are prohibited, such as those that fail to distinguish between civilian and combatant (e.g. prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons). Looking at the facts of this particular case, it would appear problematic that before the CIA drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the US botched at least a first attempt that resulted in the killing of 2 unintended targets. [1] http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml

cjensen 12y ago
In your opinion, why does "a. Self-Defense" not apply when killing a member of an organization which has killed thousands inside the US?
- spot 12y ago
  FYI that's called "revenge".
  - cjensen 12y ago
    It is not revenge to stop someone who has done you harm, openly states they will do you more harm, and has made additional attempts to cause you harm.
- speeder 12y ago
  And about killing hundreds of thousands of unrelated civilians? So, Al-Quaeda allegedly killed 10.000 people. US then kill about 9000 more of its own citizens to kill some million and a bit more abroad, and cause some everlasting civil wars, including some that made Al-Quaeda, affiliates, allies and splinter organizations stronger, not weaker.
  - cjensen 12y ago
    Parent comment was specific that killing a member of AQ in a specific instance was unlawful under International Law. I was asking about that specific instance, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Clarify?
- will_brown 12y ago
  Read Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The violation of international law results from the failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States." So again think of my hypothetical above, with the shoe on the other foot. If another country conducts a military strike in the US, and violates US sovereignty, the claim of self-defense must be against the US (i.e. the member State), not a claim of self-defense against an individual residing in the US. Essentially, there would be no rule of law if Use of Force was authorized, under the self-defense, so long as one Country alleges a terrorist is residing in another Country. To be fair, under these specific set of facts, it may have been possible to make a case before the Security Council and have the Security Council authorize the Use of Force. However, that is the whole point the US circumvented the established law and acted unilaterally, when they could have gone to the UN presented their case and had a vote on the merits.
  - cjensen 12y ago
    Thanks -- I get it now. Not sure I agree with the conclusion due to Yemen's nominal assent to this, but I don't disagree at all with the principle. As for the shoe on the other foot, that's an ongoing issue with the Polonium Tea incident being merely the latest.
tzs 12y ago
I don't see how either of the first two paragraphs are relevant to the campaign in Yemen. The US use of force there has been with the cooperation of the government of Yemen.
- will_brown 12y ago
  Member States may not collude to circumvent international law. Certainly Yemen and the US could have cooperated and presented their case in an attempt to obtain the authorization from the Security Council. Oddly the US legal justification is not that their action complies with International Law, rather that International Law does not apply...instead the US' position is that "a conflict between a transnational non-state actor and a nation, occurring outside that nation's territory, is an armed conflict not of an international character." However, the US' legal position is rather short sighted, and just imagine how quickly such a legal paradigm would break down if any foreign nation ever attempted to bomb one of their own citizens residing in the US and then claimed such use of force was not of an international character; therefore, International Law is not applicable.
  - tzs 12y ago
    In another comment, you say the violation is a failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States". In the case of the US operations in Yemen we are discussing, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Yemen have been respected, since the US had the permission and cooperation of the Yemen government. The territorial integrity and political independence of al-Qaeda in Yemen is certainly not being respected, but al-Qaeda is not a State.
    - will_brown 12y ago
      >In the case of the US operations in Yemen we are discussing, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Yemen have been respected Again Yemen's consent/cooperation is not the litmus test. For example US/Afganistan, the US had Afganisttan's cooperation to use force against the Taliban; nevertheless, the US went to and obtained authorization from the UN Secruity Council. This is/was a legal requirement, irrespective of the consent of Afganistan. The reason the US did the lawful thing Afganistan and not Yemen, is due to a poor (self-serving) legal interpretation, where the US does not consider what it did in Yemen of international character but the US could not make the same argument for Afganistan. Essentially the US claims (in a legal sense) it can kill its own citizens anywhere in the world without international law applying because US believes such action is domestic in nature. In other words the US is not making your argument, that they can use force wherever a foreign nation consents, the US' position is that the can use force anywhere in the world (with or without consent) so long as the force is used against its own citizens.

cjensen 12y ago

In your opinion, why does "a. Self-Defense" not apply when killing a member of an organization which has killed thousands inside the US?

spot 12y ago
FYI that's called "revenge".
- cjensen 12y ago
  It is not revenge to stop someone who has done you harm, openly states they will do you more harm, and has made additional attempts to cause you harm.
speeder 12y ago
And about killing hundreds of thousands of unrelated civilians? So, Al-Quaeda allegedly killed 10.000 people. US then kill about 9000 more of its own citizens to kill some million and a bit more abroad, and cause some everlasting civil wars, including some that made Al-Quaeda, affiliates, allies and splinter organizations stronger, not weaker.
- cjensen 12y ago
  Parent comment was specific that killing a member of AQ in a specific instance was unlawful under International Law. I was asking about that specific instance, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Clarify?
will_brown 12y ago
Read Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The violation of international law results from the failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States." So again think of my hypothetical above, with the shoe on the other foot. If another country conducts a military strike in the US, and violates US sovereignty, the claim of self-defense must be against the US (i.e. the member State), not a claim of self-defense against an individual residing in the US. Essentially, there would be no rule of law if Use of Force was authorized, under the self-defense, so long as one Country alleges a terrorist is residing in another Country. To be fair, under these specific set of facts, it may have been possible to make a case before the Security Council and have the Security Council authorize the Use of Force. However, that is the whole point the US circumvented the established law and acted unilaterally, when they could have gone to the UN presented their case and had a vote on the merits.
- cjensen 12y ago
  Thanks -- I get it now. Not sure I agree with the conclusion due to Yemen's nominal assent to this, but I don't disagree at all with the principle. As for the shoe on the other foot, that's an ongoing issue with the Polonium Tea incident being merely the latest.

tzs 12y ago

I don't see how either of the first two paragraphs are relevant to the campaign in Yemen. The US use of force there has been with the cooperation of the government of Yemen.

will_brown 12y ago
Member States may not collude to circumvent international law. Certainly Yemen and the US could have cooperated and presented their case in an attempt to obtain the authorization from the Security Council. Oddly the US legal justification is not that their action complies with International Law, rather that International Law does not apply...instead the US' position is that "a conflict between a transnational non-state actor and a nation, occurring outside that nation's territory, is an armed conflict not of an international character." However, the US' legal position is rather short sighted, and just imagine how quickly such a legal paradigm would break down if any foreign nation ever attempted to bomb one of their own citizens residing in the US and then claimed such use of force was not of an international character; therefore, International Law is not applicable.
- tzs 12y ago
  In another comment, you say the violation is a failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States". In the case of the US operations in Yemen we are discussing, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Yemen have been respected, since the US had the permission and cooperation of the Yemen government. The territorial integrity and political independence of al-Qaeda in Yemen is certainly not being respected, but al-Qaeda is not a State.
  - will_brown 12y ago
    >In the case of the US operations in Yemen we are discussing, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Yemen have been respected Again Yemen's consent/cooperation is not the litmus test. For example US/Afganistan, the US had Afganisttan's cooperation to use force against the Taliban; nevertheless, the US went to and obtained authorization from the UN Secruity Council. This is/was a legal requirement, irrespective of the consent of Afganistan. The reason the US did the lawful thing Afganistan and not Yemen, is due to a poor (self-serving) legal interpretation, where the US does not consider what it did in Yemen of international character but the US could not make the same argument for Afganistan. Essentially the US claims (in a legal sense) it can kill its own citizens anywhere in the world without international law applying because US believes such action is domestic in nature. In other words the US is not making your argument, that they can use force wherever a foreign nation consents, the US' position is that the can use force anywhere in the world (with or without consent) so long as the force is used against its own citizens.