Herald
Hongju Koh
transnational
legal process after 9/11
(1) unsigning the Rome Statute, seeking exemption
of the US troops from ICC jurisdiction
(2)
the US’s attitude toward GCs and it’s
decision to create Gitmo without complying the GCs as well as designating
certain US citizens in US as enemy combatant
(3)
death penalty which has been growing
irritant in relationship b/w the US and EU
All
of which show assault by the US government on the system of transnational legal
process the US has created since WWII to serve its own national interest.
After
WWII the US constructed world public order devoted to liberal internationalism.
Its effectiveness was immuted by the intent of polarity of the Cold War. After
Berlin Wall fell, from 1981 to 2001, there was an era of global optimism. The
US tried to revive the idea of using global cooperation to solve global problem
like war crime, global warming, trade, development, AIDS, transnational crime
and drug. So the approach adopted by the US was more of diplomacy, more of human
rights, and more of democracy, and more of legal process. Then, came in 9/11, a
classic example of global problem to solved by global cooperation. The Bush administration
responded not within the existing post WWII framework. But they tried to create
new architectural counter-response – Bush doctrine.
====
==== ==== ==== ===
International
Herald Tribune October 10, 2011 Monday BY
SCOTT SHANE
A world soon armed with drones; U.S.
created a new model for warfare that is certain to be pursued by others
The use of armed drones has been a
largely U.S. phenomenon. The spread of such weapons to other countries and
potentially to terrorist groups has severe implications. The problem is that the US is creating an
international norm – asserting
the right to strike preemptively against those the US suspect of planning
attack.
DO
– this would be another example of the US assaulting transnational legal process created by its own government
since the WWII
FULL
TEXT
At
the Zhuhai air show in southeastern China last November, Chinese companies
startled some Americans by unveiling 25 different models of remotely controlled
aircraft and showing video animation of a missile-armed drone taking out an
armored vehicle and attacking a U.S. aircraft carrier.
The
presentation appeared to be more marketing hype than military threat; the event
is China's biggest aviation market, drawing Chinese and foreign military
buyers. But it was stark evidence that the United States' near monopoly
on armed drones was coming to an end, with far-reaching consequences for
international law and the future of warfare, to say
nothing of American security.
Eventually,
the United States will face a military adversary or terrorist group armed with
drones, military analysts say. But what the experts foresee is not an attack on
America, which faces no enemies with significant combat drone capabilities, but
the political and legal
challenges posed when another country follows the U.S. example. The
George W. Bush administration, and even more aggressively the administration of
President Barack Obama, embraced an extraordinary principle: that the
United States can send this robotic weapon over borders to kill perceived
enemies, even American citizens, who are viewed as a threat.
''Is
this the world we want to live in?'' Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations, has asked. ''Because we're creating it.''
What
was a science-fiction scenario not much more than a decade ago has become the
news of today. In Iraq and Afghanistan, military drones have become a routine
part of the arsenal. In Pakistan, according to American officials, strikes from
Predators and Reapers operated by the C.I.A. have killed more than 2,000
militants; the number of civilian casualties is hotly debated. In Yemen last
month, an American citizen was, for the first time, the intended target of a
drone strike: Anwar al-Awlaki, the Qaeda propagandist and plotter, was killed
along with a second American, Samir Khan.
If China, for instance, sends
killer drones into Kazakhstan to hunt minority Uighur Muslims it
accuses of plotting terrorism, what will the United States say? What if
India uses remotely
controlled craft to hit terrorism suspects in Kashmir, or Russia sends drones after
militants in the Caucasus? American officials who protest are likely to
find their own example thrown back at them.
''The
problem is that we're creating an international norm'' - asserting the right to
strike preemptively against those we suspect of planning attacks, argued Dennis
M. Gormley, a senior research fellow at the University of Pittsburgh and author
of ''Missile Contagion,'' who has called for tougher export controls on U.S.
drone technology. ''The copycatting is what I worry about most.''
The
qualities
that have made lethal drones so attractive to the Obama administration for
counterterrorism appeal to many countries and, conceivably, to terrorist
groups: a capacity for leisurely surveillance and precise
strikes, modest cost, and most important, no danger to the
operator, who may sit in safety, thousands of miles from the target.
To
date, only the United States, Israel (against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in
Gaza) and Britain (in Afghanistan) are known to have used drones for strikes.
But American defense analysts count more than 50 countries that have built or
bought unmanned aerial vehicles, or U.A.V.'s, and the number is rising every
month. Most are designed for surveillance, but as the United States has found,
adding missiles or bombs is hardly a technical challenge.
''The
virtue of most U.A.V.'s is that they have long wings and you can strap anything
to them,'' Mr. Gormley said.
So
far, the United States has a huge lead in the number and sophistication of
unmanned aerial vehicles - about 7,000, by one official's estimate. The U.S.
Air Force prefers to call them not unmanned aerial vehicles but remotely piloted aircraft, or R.P.A.'s, in acknowledgment of
the human role; the air force is now training more pilots to operate drones
than fighters and bombers.
Philip
Finnegan, director of corporate analysis for the Teal Group, a company that
tracks defense and aerospace markets, says global spending on research and
procurement of drones during the next decade is expected to total more than $94
billion, including $9 billion on remotely piloted combat aircraft.
Israel
and China are aggressively developing and marketing drones, and Russia, Iran,
India, Pakistan and several other countries are not far behind. The Defense
Security Service, which protects the Pentagon and its contractors from
espionage, warned in a report last year that American drone technology had
become a prime target for foreign spies.
Last
December, a surveillance drone crashed in a neighborhood in El Paso, Texas; it
had been launched, it turned out, by the Mexican police across the border. Even
Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, has deployed drones, an Iranian design
capable of carrying munitions and diving into a target, said P.W. Singer of the
Brookings Institution in Washington, whose 2009 book ''Wired for War'' is a
primer on robotic combat.
Late
last month, a 26-year-old man from a Boston suburb was arrested and charged
with plotting to load a remotely controlled aircraft with plastic explosives
and crash it into the Pentagon or U.S. Capitol. His supposed co-conspirators
were actually undercover F.B.I. agents, and it was unclear that his plan could
have done much damage.
But
it was an unnerving harbinger, said John Villasenor, professor of electrical
engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. He noted that the
U.S. Army had just announced a $5 million contract for a
backpack-size drone called a Switchblade that could carry
an explosive payload into a target; such a weapon will not long be beyond
the capabilities of a terrorist network.
''If
they are skimming over rooftops and trees, they will be almost impossible to
shoot down,'' Mr. Villasenor maintained.
It
is easy to imagine terrorist drones rigged not just to carry bombs but to spew
anthrax or scatter radioactive waste. Speculation that Al Qaeda might use
exotic weapons has so far turned out to be just that. But the technological
curve for drones means the threat can no longer be discounted.
''I
think of where the airplane was at the start of World War I,'' Mr. Singer said.
''At first it was unarmed and limited to a handful of countries. Then it was
armed and everywhere. That is the path we're on.''
