4) Terrorism Flashcards
How do technological advancements challenge use-of-force norms in international security, as discussed by Bode?
(Hint: Consider the concept of “technological practices” and norm contestation.)
Answer:
Bode argues that technological advancements, such as drones and AI, challenge traditional use-of-force norms by enabling new practices that blur the lines between war and peace. These technologies can redefine concepts like proportionality and distinction, often undermining established legal and ethical frameworks.
Connection:
Bode emphasizes that states use technological practices to contest and reshape norms, demonstrating how emerging technologies influence both international law and security governance.
What is the principle of distinction, and how is it impacted by the use of drones in targeted killings?
(Hint: Refer to Gregory’s analysis and Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.)
Answer:
The principle of distinction requires parties in conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Gregory critiques the use of drones in targeted killings for undermining this principle, as drone strikes often result in civilian casualties due to flawed intelligence or imprecise targeting.
Text of Additional Protocol I, Article 48:
“In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.”
Connection:
Gregory’s analysis highlights the tension between operational efficiency and adherence to international humanitarian law (IHL) principles.
How has the norm of targeted killing evolved and institutionalized in the United States, according to Pratt?
(Hint: Focus on norm transformation and institutional practices.)
Answer:
Pratt argues that the norm of targeted killing has transformed from an exceptional measure into a routine practice institutionalized within U.S. counterterrorism strategies. This evolution was driven by bureaucratic processes, technological advancements, and legal justifications that normalized its use.
Connection:
Pratt emphasizes the role of institutional practices in reshaping norms, illustrating how targeted killing became embedded in U.S. policy despite its controversial nature.
What are the key legal principles governing targeted killings, as outlined in Nils Melzer’s analysis?
(Hint: Refer to the principles of necessity, proportionality, and accountability.)
Answer:
Melzer identifies key principles in international law governing targeted killings:
Necessity: Use of lethal force must be a last resort. Proportionality: Harm caused must not exceed the military advantage gained. Accountability: States must ensure transparency and investigate unlawful killings.
Connection:
Melzer critiques the lack of adherence to these principles in modern targeted killing practices, particularly in the context of counterterrorism operations.
What are the ethical and legal implications of extraterritorial targeted killings, as discussed in the Report by Philip Alston?
(Hint: Focus on state accountability and sovereignty.)
Answer:
Alston highlights that extraterritorial targeted killings raise significant legal and ethical concerns, including violations of sovereignty, lack of accountability, and risks to civilians. He critiques the expansion of these practices without clear international oversight mechanisms.
Connection:
The report emphasizes the need for stricter adherence to international legal frameworks to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of targeted killing capabilities.
How do drones and AI redefine accountability in targeted killings, as explored by Milanovic?
(Hint: Consider the role of technology in decision-making and legal challenges.)
Answer:
Milanovic examines how drones and AI complicate accountability by decentralizing decision-making processes and relying on algorithms. These technologies challenge traditional notions of intent and responsibility under international law.
Connection:
Milanovic underscores the need for legal frameworks to address emerging technologies and ensure accountability in their use, particularly in extraterritorial operations.
What role does proportionality play in assessing the legality of targeted killings under international law?
(Hint: Refer to IHL and Nils Melzer’s analysis.)
Answer:
Proportionality requires that the harm inflicted by an attack does not exceed the anticipated military advantage. Melzer critiques targeted killings for often breaching this principle, particularly when drone strikes result in excessive civilian casualties.
Text of Additional Protocol I, Article 51(5)(b):
“An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life… which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated is prohibited.”
Connection:
Proportionality serves as a critical benchmark for evaluating the legality of targeted killings under IHL.
What is the significance of transparency and accountability in targeted killings, as highlighted by Philip Alston?
(Hint: Consider the need for oversight and public reporting.)
Answer:
Alston emphasizes that transparency and accountability are essential to ensuring targeted killings comply with international law. This includes public reporting, independent investigations, and mechanisms for redress in cases of unlawful killings.
Connection:
The lack of transparency in targeted killing programs undermines trust and adherence to international legal standards, raising concerns about impunity and abuse.
