Can U.S. Defend Drones Without Pakistani Consent?

[The Northerner]

Drones may be new, futuristic weapons, but the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan raises the oldest of international legal questions: what gives one country the right to violate the sovereignty of another?

For years, it has been widely accepted that Pakistani officials had tacitly consented to drone strikes (despite public statements to the contrary) rendering this sovereignty concern moot.

But since the Raymond Davis fiasco and a March 17th drone strike that reportedly killed a large numbers of civilians, it is clear that Pakistani consent can no longer be assumed. In recent weeks, Pakistani officials, including powerful military and intelligence leaders, have voiced strong opposition to U.S. strikes and both publicly and privately demanded an end to U.S. drone strikes. Meanwhile, drone strikes have continued.

Much attention has been paid to the more Machiavellian nature of Pakistani officials' demands, from strengthening the country's hand for an endgame in Afghanistan to outflanking domestic political rivals. Others have focused on the civilian casualties and the popular backlash in Pakistan. With news of the deployment of drones in Libya, the debate has extended to the ethics and longer-term security implications of drone warfare.

But little attention has been paid to what is now the most obvious legal problem with the U.S. drone campaign: how can the U.S. justify violating the national sovereignty of Pakistan?

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rogers/us-pakistan-drone-attacks_b_855112.html