Drones And The International Rule Of Law Analysis
Analyzing the paper called “Drones and the International Rule of Law” by Rosa Brooks, it can be concluded that the paper is about the challenges for the International Rule of Law due to the implementation of Drones by the U.S. that neither fits into current Internationally accepted UN charters nor Geneva Conventions. Author’s stance is not clear because she seems to be criticizing drone strikes of the U.S., however she rejects that it is a violation of International Law, rather she claims the U.S. is trying to put forward its own interpretation of some Internationally accepted concepts such as: imminence, self-defense and necessity. The author defines rule of law as constraining and ordering power and violence. Also she claims that although states
…show more content…
Basically she points out many inconsistencies and contradictions of UN charters and resolutions on international rule of law and sovereignty, claiming that despite the fact UN recognizes all states as equal formally, still Security Council grants veto power to only five most powerful states. Also the author claims UN charters are implicit and ambiguous, or even too broad making it possible for some states to interpret these internationally accepted laws and concepts in their own interest so that to avoid conflict and criticism. She also indicates the challenge for individuals to get access to law because of the lack of mechanism, however individuals can prove theirs right through a very few means within the international system. The author uses very important and clear quotes of UN charters and descriptions regarding rule of law and sovereignty, however she fails to mention that the U.S. also should comply with international rule of
Basically she points out many inconsistencies and contradictions of UN charters and resolutions on international rule of law and sovereignty, claiming that despite the fact UN recognizes all states as equal formally, still Security Council grants veto power to only five most powerful states. Also the author claims UN charters are implicit and ambiguous, or even too broad making it possible for some states to interpret these internationally accepted laws and concepts in their own interest so that to avoid conflict and criticism. She also indicates the challenge for individuals to get access to law because of the lack of mechanism, however individuals can prove theirs right through a very few means within the international system. The author uses very important and clear quotes of UN charters and descriptions regarding rule of law and sovereignty, however she fails to mention that the U.S. also should comply with international rule of