Authors: Stanford Clinic and New York University Clinic
This report from the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic and New York University School of Law studies the extent to which drone strikes in Pakistan have conformed to international law and caused harm or injury to civilians.
The tension between Washington and Islamabad over the former's drone assaults on targets in Pakistan is rising. But a prospective geopolitical rivalry involving both countries has even wider ramifications.
This memorandum from the Congressional Research Serviceattempts to clarify the debate over lethal targeting of U.S. citizens with suspected ties to terrorist activites by providing legal background, setting forth what is known about the Administration's positionz and identifying possible points of contention among legal experts and other observers.
The Department of Defense submitted this report in April 2012, outlining its current investment in unmanned aircraft systems (also known as drones) and future financial, personnel, and infrastructure needs through Fiscal Year 2017.
Matthew C. Waxman discusses U.S. attorney general Eric Holder's address providing the Obama administration's legal rationale for targeted killings of certain al Qaeda suspects--including U.S. citizens.
Drones have become a cost-effective default tactic for dealing with potential terrorist threats since 9/11, but this policy could lead to drone strikes by other countries as well as pushback from targeted states, says CFR's Micah Zenko.
Learn more about CFR’s mission and its work over the past year in the 2016 Annual Report. The Annual Report spotlights new initiatives, high-profile events, and authoritative scholarship from CFR experts, and includes a message from CFR President Richard N. Haass. Read and download »