Are U.S. Drone Attacks in Pakistan a Violation of International Law?

This dissertation delves into the contentious issue of U.S. drone attacks within Pakistan's territory, examining whether these actions constitute a violation of international law. The research explores the historical context, beginning with the Bush administration's strategy to combat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, particularly in Northwest Pakistan. It analyzes the legal arguments presented by both the U.S. and Pakistan, considering the perspectives of international bodies like the UN and ICJ. The study investigates the impact of drone strikes on civilians, the implications for Pakistan's sovereignty, and the justifications offered by the U.S., such as self-defense. The methodology includes a literature review, thematic analysis, and consideration of ethical aspects. Ultimately, the dissertation aims to evaluate the legality of these attacks, considering the complex interplay of international law, national sovereignty, and the consequences of drone warfare.

Running head: U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
U.S. Drone Attacks inside Pakistan’s territory: A Violation of International Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:

1U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Abstract
Drone attacks are menace for the civilians in Pakistan for they have been subjected to
unnecessary violence over the years. It is a breach of the State’s sovereignty which Pakistan
has failed to deal with time and again. U.S. drone attack signifies a major violation of
international law for it challenges the international rule of law by defying the legal
categorization. U.S. drone attacks are infamous in the international legal scenario as a
straight-forward rule-breaking phenomenon which is ever-so growing with every passing
year. Since 2004, the U.S. government has set up numerous surgical drones strikes in the
Northwest Pakistan by way of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or drones under the control
of the United States Air Force and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The drone attacks
in Pakistan are prevalent since the administration of the George Bush government in the U.S.
in 2004, which saw an increasing number in the administration of Barack Obama
government. Even though the Pakistani government has been condemning the drone attack
continuously over the years, yet till 2011 drone operation of a foreign state was legally
allowed by Pakistan until April 2011. The US has been defending itself under the blanket of
self-defense from the deadly terrorist who has been harbored by Pakistan. However, the
International bodies like UN, ICJ are of different view. In this study, the debate of the legality
will be discussed from the point of view of both the nations, along with the perspective of
certain important international bodies.

2U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................5
1.0 Overview..............................................................................................................5
1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................5
1.2 Rationale..............................................................................................................7
1.3 Research aim........................................................................................................7
1.4 Research objectives..............................................................................................7
1.5 Research Question................................................................................................8
1.6 Problem Statement...............................................................................................8
1.7 Structure of the research.......................................................................................8
1.8 Summary............................................................................................................10
Chapter 2: Literature Review.......................................................................................11
2.1 Overview............................................................................................................11
2.2 Background of U.S. Drone attacks in Pakistan..................................................11
2.2.1 Drone Technology.......................................................................................11
2.2.2 Historical background of Drone Attacks.....................................................13
2.2.3 Background of U.S. Drone attacks in Pakistan...........................................13
2.3 U.S. viewpoint about Drone attacks in Pakistan................................................16
2.4 Pakistan’s stand on U.S. Drone attacks..............................................................18
2.5 Impact of the U.S. Drone attacks on Pakistan....................................................20
2.6 Legality of the U.S. Drone attacks.....................................................................23
2.6.1 Concerns of the United Nations Human Rights Council............................25

3U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
2.7 Summary............................................................................................................27
Chapter 3: Research Methodology...............................................................................28
3.1 Overview............................................................................................................28
3.2 Research Outline................................................................................................28
3.3 Research Philosophy..........................................................................................28
3.4 Research Approach............................................................................................29
3.5 Research Design.................................................................................................29
3.6 Data Collection Process.....................................................................................30
3.7 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................31
3.8 Ethical Consideration.........................................................................................31
3.9 Limitations.........................................................................................................32
3.10 Summary..........................................................................................................33
Chapter 4: Thematic Analysis......................................................................................34
4.1 Overview............................................................................................................34
4.2 Theme 1: Effects of U.S. Drone Attacks............................................................34
4.3 Theme 2: Rationale behind the standpoint of U.S. and Pakistan......................39
4.4 Theme 3: The Question of Legality..................................................................41
4.5 Summary............................................................................................................45
Chapter 5: Conclusion..................................................................................................46
5.1 Overview............................................................................................................46
5.2 Conclusion..........................................................................................................46

4U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
5.3 Recommendations..............................................................................................48
Bibliography.................................................................................................................49

5U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.0 Overview
The first chapter of this research paper strives to provide an overview of the study on
the U.S. Drone Attacks inside Pakistan’s territory: A violation of International Law by
discussing an introductory section, introducing the topic in which the research for the study
will be conducted. The researcher frames a research statement in order to point out the main
view point of the research towards which the study is directed. A Research Question have
been framed based on the research topic along with the Aims and Objectives of the research.
Lastly, a detailed Chapterisation has been provided to show the tentative chapters that can be
expected in the research paper.
1.1 Introduction
Drone attacks are menace for the civilians in Pakistan for they have been subjected to
unnecessary violence over the years. It is a breach of the State’s sovereignty which Pakistan
has failed to deal with time and again. U.S. drone attack signifies a major violation of
international law for it challenges the international rule of law by defying the legal
categorization. U.S. drone attacks are infamous in the international legal scenario as a
straight-forward rule-breaking phenomenon which is ever-so growing with every passing
year. Since 2004, the U.S. government has set up numerous surgical drone strikes in the
Northwest Pakistan by way of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or drones under the control
of the United States Air Force and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The drone attacks
in Pakistan are prevalent since the administration of the George Bush government in the U.S.
in 2004, which saw an increasing number in the administration of Barack Obama
government. Even though the Pakistani government has been condemning the drone attack

6U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
continuously over the years, yet till 2011 drone operation of a foreign state was legally
allowed by Pakistan until April 2011.
U.S. drone strikes portrays significant challenge to the international law, for it only
violates international rule of law but also jeopardizes the sovereignty of Pakistan by
showcasing a blatant scenario of rule-breaking. Such instances of violation of international
law clearly defy the legal categorization even though U.S. claims to support their action post
9/11 incident1. The United States have backed their actions with legal theories behind such
drone strikes as a “self-defense, imminence, armed attack, necessity, armed conflict,
combatant, hostilities.”2 Such justifications have been denied by the international
adjudicating bodies as insufficient and baseless for it has been repeatedly established by the
international authorities that U.S. has no territorial jurisdiction over Pakistan’s land, air space
and nautical miles. In its defense, the U.S. has put forwarded the loose ends of the Pakistan’s
policies and approval for flying Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in its air space still 20113.
The Pakistan government’s reluctant attitude towards the violation of its sovereignty and the
distress of the civilians have been heavily criticized by the citizens of Pakistan as well as by
international players branding it as an international political crisis4.
Legality of the drone strikes by U.S. in Pakistan has been a long-standing debate
among the two nations involving various international bodies as well. The United States have
tried its best to justify its actions of unwarranted drone attacks in Pakistan over the years even
though Pakistan have come up with the query about the legality of such drone attacks even
though United States lack jurisdiction over Pakistan’s territory. Even after stating ample
1 Groves, Steven. Drone Strikes: The legality of US Targeting terrorists abroad. Heritage Foundation, 2013.
2 Azhar, Wafa, and Khushboo Ejaz “Legality of US Drone Strikes in Pakistan.” Journal of Politics and
International Studies 1 (2015): 100-118.
3 Fair, C. Christine, Karl Kaltenthaler, and William J. Miller. "Pakistani opposition to American drone
strikes." Political Science Quarterly 129.1 (2014): 1-33.
4 Shah, Sikander Ahmed. International law and drone strike in Pakistan: the legal and socio-political aspects.
Routledge, 2014.

7U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
justification for their actions, U.S. has failed to convince the international bodies regarding
the necessity, reasonability and the legality of the drone attacks.
Therefore, through this study, the perspective of both the nations will be evaluated
and a conclusion will be drawn as to the violation of international law as well as the breach of
Pakistan’s sovereignty due to such unprecedented and unalarmed U.S. drone attacks5. In
addition, an evaluation of the legality of these attacks will be adjudged based on the fragile
and vague policies that Pakistan has in regard to these drone surgical strikes. Vagueness of
Pakistan’s policies and approach towards such unjustified and illegal conduct of the U.S. is
much spoken topic over the last decade, which would be discussed briefly as well.
1.2 Rationale
The rationale of conducting this research is to emphasize on the repeated violation of
international law and the state sovereignty of Pakistan due to the unprecedented drone attack
since 2004. The opinion of both the sovereign state is taken into consideration in this study in
order to point out the necessity of it as well as the evil impact it causes upon the innocent
victims. The justification put forwarded by the U.S. government in support of the repeated
drone strikes over the years needs to be critically analyzed in order to evaluate whether they
really violate the international rule of law along with the sovereignty of Pakistan.
1.3 Research aim
The aim of this research is to evaluate whether the continuous drone strikes by the
U.S. government violate the international law, the sovereignty of Pakistan along with
jeopardizing the safety of its civilians.
1.4 Research objectives
The objective of the projected research work is:
5 Allinson, Jamie. "The necropolitics of drones." International Political Sociology 9.2 (2015): 113-127.

8U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
 To analyze the effects of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan by the help of different
of the views of different researches;
 To understand the view point of Pakistan in claiming the evil effects of the
drone strikes; and
 To evaluate the view point of the U.S. defending their drone surgical strikes in
Pakistan.
1.5 Research Question
 Are the U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan violating the international law?
 How does U.S. justify their stand on the repeated drone attacks in Pakistan’s
territory over the years?
1.6 Problem Statement
The U.S. Drone attacks in Pakistan are a clear violation of international law as well as
the sovereignty of Pakistan, yet the State is unable to restrict it from occurring time and
again, over the years, thereby letting the civilians open to unwarranted violence.
1.7 Structure of the research
The dissertation will be divided into five major chapters comprising of Introduction,
Literature Review, Research methodology, Thematic Data Analysis and Conclusion.
Introduction
The foremost chapter provides a concise discussion on the drone attacks by the U.S.
in Pakistan that violates international law as well as the sovereignty of the state along with
putting the safety of the civilians in jeopardy. The importance of conducting the research
work is briefly stated as the ‘Rationale’ that talks about the significance of the research work
along with giving an overview of the variables that could be expected from the paper. A
research Aim and certain Objectives have been put forwarded that guides and keeps the

9U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
research on track. The Problem Statement strives to justify the perspective of the researchers
that has been aimed to establish through the study.
Literature Review
The second chapter gives a detailed review of the available literatures on U.S. drone
attacks in Pakistan that violates international law, human rights and Pakistan’s sovereignty of
being a state free from external control. The historical background of drone attacks and
studies on drone technology will be discussed to understand its significance and necessity in
the international political scenario6. Researches on the background of U.S. drone attacks in
Pakistan will be incorporated in this section to give an overview of the situation of Pakistan
as a victim of unwarranted violence. The perspective of U.S. and their justification of such
repeated attacks over the years are discussed along with the view of Pakistan and their plea of
defense pertaining to it.
Research Methodology
A Qualitative research shall be conducted in the paper for evaluating the necessity for
the drone attacks as justified by the U.S. along with the evil impacts of it that Pakistan suffers
due to it. Interpretivism research philosophy has been chosen to back the research with
different opinions of researches, thereby critically analyzing the findings of this research with
the collected data. Secondary sources like journals, books, government websites, newspaper
articles and other internet sources shall be consulted for collecting the relevant data for the
research work. Ethical considerations will be followed while conducting the research along
with pointing out the research drawbacks that the researchers might face in the course of the
study.
Data Analysis
6 Brooks, Rosa. "Drones and the international rule of law." Ethics & International Affairs 28.1 (2014): 83-103.

10U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
The collected data shall be analyzed by way of a thematic analysis method where
certain themes will be selected based on the projected research objectives, thereby analysing
the findings of the study in order to reach a conclusion.
Conclusion
The entire study will be summarized along with justifying the research statement that
the researcher had proposed at the beginning of the research.
1.8 Summary
The introduction chapter, therefore, gives a complete overview of the agenda of this
research paper on the U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan: A Violation of International law. A clear
aim and a few objectives pertaining to the research topic shall be the goal of the researcher to
achieve in the upcoming chapters which will carry forward the study. The research work shall
strictly abide by projected research structure in order to establish the proposed problem
statement for reaching the desired outcome.

11U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Overview
This chapter shall strive to lay down a detailed review of the literature that shall be
resorted to, for collecting the relevant data and information, which will be necessary for
analyzing the information in the next chapter. The chapter would comprise of the background
of drone attacks in Pakistan, operated by the United States in the name of surveillance and
retaliation. The viewpoint of both the countries has been discussed in detail along with a
thorough critical analysis of the two views by citing relevant books and journals. The impact
of such attacks has also been critically discussed along with the reaction of the Pakistani
people. The debate on the legality of the U.S. drones attacks have been incorporated in the
literature review in order to draw a critical analysis of it. The literature review, therefore,
strives to gather data and information from different body of work and researches that have
already been carried out on the same topic.
2.2 Background of U.S. Drone attacks in Pakistan
2.2.1 Drone Technology
Drone are unmanned aerial vehicles which does not have a pilot sitting in it that could
control its course. It is remote control driven. Drones are often terms as UAV or UAVS
which stands for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles System. It is also
regarded as RPVs which stands for Remotely Piloted Vehicles, as a pilot controls it from the
ground by the help of advanced technology7. Drones are of different shapes and sizes,
exhibiting different functions from one another. UAVs are commonly used as missiles by the
military of all modern states around the world, especially the United States which has been in
the news for drone attacks over the last decade. UAVs are different from other missiles as
7 Zenko, Micah. Reforming US drone strike policies. No. 65. Council on Foreign Relations, 2013.

12U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
these are controlled, driven by a responding engine and having a continuous fight mode. As
stated by the BBC reports, unmanned vehicles are used whenever it is difficult to use a
manned vehicle, either for surveillance or attack. UAVS mostly consists of: a) an unmanned
aircraft, smaller in size and lighter in weight; b) a control system; c) a control link which
links the vehicle with the pilot who controls it; and d) a few other supportive equipment8.
UAVs have different uses but they are mostly used by the military of all modern
states for tactical operations and other war related purposes which could be lethal and of
course, immoral. There are a few particular purposes for which drones are used by the
military:
a) As a target that helps in getting ground and aerial vantage point against an enemy missile
or aircraft;
b) As an instrument of surveillance in warfare, providing battleground intelligence;
c) As a tool of controlling logistics, for performing logistics and cargo related operations;
d) As a means to carry out research work to develop UAV technology for developing future
UAV aircrafts; and
e) For civil as well as commercial operations9.
However, commonly, it is used for military purposes which acts as ‘an eye in the sky’
as commented by the BBC reports. The MQ-9 Reaper and the MQ-1B Predator are the
commonly used U.S. UAVs used by the US Air Force and the CIA. Attack by these drones
has been in the news when US had attacked Pakistan and Uzbekistan terrorist bases for the
first time in 200110.
8 Wan, William, and Peter Finn. "Global race on to match US drone capabilities." Washington Post 4 (2011).
9 Zenko, Micah. Reforming US drone strike policies. No. 65. Council on Foreign Relations, 2013.
10 Wan, William, and Peter Finn. "Global race on to match US drone capabilities." Washington Post 4 (2011).

13U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
2.2.2 Historical background of Drone Attacks
The foundation of drone attacks could be dated back in 1849 in a war between Austria
and Venice where Austria had attacked Venice with approximately two hundred unmanned
balloons filled with explosives. Since then the unmanned vehicles have been developed by
way of modern technology and are more advanced, technologically with different operational
functions and usage. A radio-controlled unmanned airplane known as the Aerial Target (AT)
was designed in 1916 with the purpose of using it as an aerial defense and a flying bomb
against a German airship11. This was the first aerial unmanned vehicle which paved the way
for the invention and development of drones of advanced technology with time. ‘Kettering
Bug’ was introduced by the U.S. in 1917. The British drone innovation and advancement
started since 1931 when they formed the ‘Fairey Queen’ and then developed it as the ‘Queen
Bee’. With the advancement of research on drone technology, the volume of drone attacks
has also grew over the passage of time in the world; U.S. and UK being the leading of them
all. The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles are much light in weight and smaller in size in
comparison to the manned vehicles and therefore they have been the most appropriate tool for
modern tactical warfare. The MQ-9 Reaper and the MQ-1B Predator are the commonly used
combat drones used by the U.S. government in terms of battling against terrorism12. The
drone attack in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan led by CIA was heavily criticized by most
international organization.
2.2.3 Background of U.S. Drone attacks in Pakistan
Since 2004, Pakistan has been the target of the U.S. in terms of conducting aerial
attacks by the help of combat drones. The U.S. led a drone attack on Afghanistan when many
U.S. militants took shelter in a place in Pakistan called Federally Administered Tribal Areas
or FATA (3 agencies namely Bajaur, North Waziristan and South Waziristan out of the
11 Williams, Brian Glyn. "The CIA's covert Predator drone war in Pakistan, 2004–2010: the history of an
assassination campaign." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism33.10 (2010): 871-892.
12 Wan, William, and Peter Finn. "Global race on to match US drone capabilities." Washington Post 4 (2011).

14U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
seven) which was infested with Al-Qaeda and Taliban. These areas have been under U.S.
target for a long time since it has been traced as an attacker on NATO supplies and the
September 11 attack in the U.S. moreover, the intelligence agency of the Pakistan ad its
government has been linked with the terrorist groups of FATA several times13. In this regard,
the drone strike was a decision of the U.S. militant to take effective measures against
Pakistan and its terrorist groups. As per the researched chronological orders and incidents, the
US drone attacks on Pakistan was started by the George W. Bush government since 2004
after the 9/11 attack when Pakistan’s former President General Pervez Musharraf was given
the choice as to whether he would like Pakistan to side with the US or against it. The
President of Pakistan had chosen to support US by giving the US government authority to
observe and hunt down FATA in order demolish the terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al
Qaeda. This helped Islamabad to receive substantial amount of diplomatic and financial
support from Washington which indirectly helped the Bush government’s political strategies
and agenda to deal with terrorism.
However, Pakistan's false commitments were soon out in the light when Pakistan's
intelligence agencies were heavily condemned for playing a duel game with the US, as on
one hand it claimed to be supporting us in fighting terrorism while on the other hand it was
found to be signing deals with the Taliban and Al Qaeda that strike against US and NATO
forces in Afghanistan. In this regard George W. Bush had stated that America will not make
any distinction between the terrorists who disseminate terrorism and those who harbour them.
This could be marked as the beginning of the implementations of the policy of conducting
unmanned predator attacks in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan
which is located by the side of the Afghan borders14. The drone attacks has been led by the
13 Ronald Shaw, Ian Graham, and Majed Akhter. "The unbearable humanness of drone warfare in FATA,
Pakistan." Antipode 44.4 (2012): 1490-1509.
14 Ronald Shaw, Ian Graham, and Majed Akhter. "The unbearable humanness of drone warfare in FATA,
Pakistan." Antipode 44.4 (2012): 1490-1509.

15U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), one of the intelligence agencies of the US, in order to kill
terrorists and terrorism who the US claimed were hiding in that region. These UAV missile
attacks not only kills the targeted terrorist groups but also some others like Rashid Rauf who
was the mastermind behind the 2006 plan of blowing up airlines in the UK, departing for the
US.
This attack conducted by UAV missiles has been named as drone war which has not
only killed terrorist groups but also brought injuries to a lot of civilians, the count of which
husband hidden by the US under the figures of militant casualties. This has been reported as a
‘collateral damage' which is causing injuries, damage and death to people and their properties
who are not involved in such military operations15. The year 2010 was marked as the
deadliest year in terms of casualties from 134 drone strikes that inflicted over 900 deaths16.
The number of strikes conducted by George Bush’s government was found to have thrived
under Obama's administration. 2009 saw 53 drone strikes, in 2010 it was 118 and another 53
till August 10, 2011. The drone strikes were heavily criticised by the intellectuals of both the
Nations and it was pointed out that the conduct of the US is turning the people of Pakistan
against the United States. The Pakistani Human Rights organisations documented several
interviews of witnesses, drone attack survivors and other people in Pakistan in order to
conclude that only 2% of the victims of the drone strikes were high level militant leaders
while others were only accomplice to them and a majority was innocent civilians17. It was
speculated that the Army Chief of Pakistan, Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani had secret ties with the
US and was helping them to continue with their deadly drone attacks.
15 Callam, Andrew. "Drone wars: Armed unmanned aerial vehicles." International Affairs Review 18.3 (2010).
16 Johnston, Patrick B., and Anoop K. Sarbahi. "The impact of US drone strikes on terrorism in
Pakistan." International Studies Quarterly 60.2 (2016): 203-219.
17 Smith, Megan, and James Igoe Walsh. "Do drone strikes degrade Al Qaeda? Evidence from propaganda
output." Terrorism and Political Violence 25.2 (2013): 311-327.

16U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
2.3 U.S. viewpoint about Drone attacks in Pakistan
As mentioned before, it was George W Bush, the then US President who had made
drone attacks a common tool for surveillance and surgical strike over Pakistan due to the
innumerable terrorist attacks and mass killing by several terrorist groups of Pakistan. The
incidence of drone attacks was increased with time by George Bush’s successor, President
Barack Obama who increased the target against Pakistan and its government who had been
harbouring the terrorist groups, even though they had made a friendly deal with the Bush
government. Leon Panetta, the then director of the CIA in 2009 had her that the surgical
strikes of drone attacks will continue and it was mention that the drone attacks war targeting
Baitullah Mehsud. The Obama government mentioned that it was the failure of the Pakistani
government to keep track of its terrorist activities in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
In this regard the United States pointed out that it is their right of self-defence as per Article
51 of chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In his speech of 2013. President Obama, at
the national defence of University argued that the US military would strive to act against the
terrorists who pose a threat against the Americans in case a country that harbours the terrorist
and therefore fails to address the imminent risk. In 2010, Harold Koh, the legal advisor of the
US state department mention that the drone attacks are legal under international law on the
basis of the right to defence of a nation18. It was also put forward by Koh that as United States
is under an armed conflict with the Taliban, the Al-Qaeda and various other terrorist groups,
who has been harboured by Pakistan, Afghanistan and a few other suspected countries, it
would be justified for the US to implement any kind of warfare strategy in order to defend
itself from such International terrorism19.
18 Khan, Akbar Nasir. "The US’policy of targeted killings by drones in Pakistan." Washington Post
(Washington) (2010): 25.
19 Smith, Megan, and James Igoe Walsh. "Do drone strikes degrade Al Qaeda? Evidence from propaganda
output." Terrorism and Political Violence 25.2 (2013): 311-327.

17U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
It has been known from former CIA officials that lawyers are appointed in order to
decide of killing a particular terrorist or an armed militant group, who to lay down briefs to
justify the reasons for such targets of CIA and any argument that falls flat automatically
rejects the agenda20a. It has been pointed out as an extremely mindful and strategic planning
that runs on logical political agenda and international law. This sensible and logical move has
been pointed out as a tactics that have resulted in fewer deaths, affecting the low-level
fighters of the terrorist groups and Pakistani civilians allot lesser than what it had caused
before. The tactics of ‘Signature Strike’ include proper sharing of information from a
communication intercept, a clear view of militants training camps, and certain other
supporting evidences which confirms the presence of a high-value target (an important
terrorist leader or coordinator)21. In this way the presence of high value targets in an area
could be sensed and strategic actions could subsequently be planned, which could be made
effective within a short span of time. However, it has been criticized by Drone critics who
have pointed out that it is easy to mistaken civilian behaviour with militant signatures.
There are many critics of the US drone attacks in Pakistan. US Congressman Dennis
Kucinich have been vocal about the violation of the international law that has been a
continuous act by the US by carrying out drone attacks against Pakistan which officially has
never attacked the United States22. As per the military report of the US, the Al-Qaeda has
been systematically uprooted by the help of these attacks and the volume of terrorist attacks
has decreased to a significant level in the US. Senator John McCain and Joe Lieberman in
2010 commented that the drone attacks were significant and effective and therefore US
would keep it up, with an effort to restrict collateral damage23. In order to rectify and
20 Khan, Akbar Nasir. "The US’policy of targeted killings by drones in Pakistan." Washington Post
(Washington) (2010): 25.
21 Heller, Kevin Jon. "‘One Hell of a Killing Machine’ Signature Strikes and International Law." Journal of
International Criminal Justice 11.1 (2013): 89-119.
22 Khan, Akbar Nasir. "The US’policy of targeted killings by drones in Pakistan." Washington Post
(Washington) (2010): 25.
23 Heller, Kevin Jon. "‘One Hell of a Killing Machine’ Signature Strikes and International Law." Journal of
International Criminal Justice 11.1 (2013): 89-119.

18U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
strengthen the relationship with the Pakistan government, the US had even shared its drone
surveillance data with Pakistan in 2010, as committed by Mike Mullen, a top US military
officer.
2.4 Pakistan’s stand on U.S. Drone attacks
It has been a topic of speculation that the US government has always been favoured
by the Pakistani government and the Pakistani intelligence services for carrying out its drone
attacks against the Pakistani Taliban. While targeting high value terrorists and terrorist
groups, the US drone attacks have also targeted the lives of many civilians which has been a
controversy related to these attacks that has been encourage by Pakistani government as well.
It is undoubtedly that the drone attacks carried out by the US over Pakistan has caused
enormous problem for the Pakistani civilians along with breaching Pakistan sovereignty. It is
of immense curiosity as to how the Pakistan government has failed over the years to defend
its sovereignty which has been breached by US repeatedly over the last decade24.
Pakistan in its defence has highlighted the fact that it has been unable take measures
against the terrorists in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) as this area has been
under the nominal control of Pakistan. Pakistan has been unable to conduct a counter
terrorism operation in FATA due to the prevailing independence pertaining to the foundation
of the state. Therefore the US has always considered Pakistan's effort to eradicate Taliban and
Al Qaeda as half-hearted. Pakistan has tried repeatedly to protest against search drone attacks
which breaches its sovereignty by having a control over the safety of the civilians, which
includes children and women. The Pakistani news reporters, intellectuals, bureaucrats and
government leaders has been vocal about the violation of international law by the U.S forces
and held that such incidences would not be tolerated by exercising the right to self-defence as
a counter attack. Terrorist groups and its leaders like Baitullah Mehsud have been targeted
24 Bergen, Peter, and Katherine Tiedemann. "Washington's Phantom War: The Effects of the US Drone
Programs in Pakistan." Foreign Aff. 90 (2011): 12.

19U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
since a long time. On September 2008 a Pakistani army spokesman protested against the
Washington’s drone attack strategies of killing innocent Pakistani civilians and threatened
America to be prepared for a retaliatory action from Pakistan’s end25. It was also stated that
Pakistan could not tolerate US's border violation in the name of surgical strike in Afghanistan
which has led to the death of innumerable Pakistani civilians. The spokesman also informed
that Pakistan holds the right to self-defence alike America and they would retaliate if US
continues with its cross-border attack. Baitullah Mehsud, accepted his involvement for the
attack in the Lahore Police academy in 2009 and informed that it was retaliation against the
drone attacks of US. According to a news report by The Daily Telegraph, d Pakistani
intelligence along with the government was secretly providing information to the US
regarding the whereabouts of Baitullah Mehsud and his armed militant group, while the
government would keep on condemning the US drone attacks publicly. On April 2009, Akhil
Nadeem, the then Consul General of Pakistan asked US to handover the controls of its drone
in Pakistan to the Pakistani government. The then Pakistan President Asif Ali zardari
requested the US for handing over the controls of the drones to Pakistan which was rejected
by the US on the ground that they sure that Pakistan will disclose sensitive information to the
terrorist groups. In December 2009, Ahmad Mukhtar, the then Pakistan’s Defence Minister
alleged that us was using Pakistan's Shamsi Airfield without a satisfactory payment for
making use of the facility. On December 2010 the CIA station chief posted in Islamabad was
ask to return to America when he was alleged for or death of several civilians who was killed
by the drone attacks26.
As an interesting fact, major general Ghayur Mahmood delivered a brief on 'myths
and rumours about US predator strikes' where he mentioned that the US drone strikes mostly
killed Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and not civilians. This strategy could be e interpreted
25 Delmont, Matt. "Drone encounters: Noor Behram, Omer Fast, and visual critiques of drone
warfare." American Quarterly 65.1 (2013): 193-202.
26 Bergen, Peter, and Katherine Tiedemann. "The year of the drone." New America Foundation 24 (2010).

20U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
as an attempt to console the range of the Pakistani civilians who were both angry with the US
government as well as their own government. On December 2011, Ashfaq parvez kayani, the
then Pakistan’s army Chief gives an order to shoot down US drones and to treat any object
entering into the air space of Pakistan as hostile and therefore shall be shot down27. After The
assassination of Osama bin laden 2011 the ISI stopped acknowledging us faxes however
continued to clear the air space of the areas where US drones were operating28.
In May 2013, the US drone attacks were declared as illegal by a Pakistani Court and
was also declared that the Pakistan government must do whatever it takes to end drone
attacks even if application of force was required. In July 2013 the US drone attacks
drastically decreased in number for the CIA was instructed to be more cautious and therefore
limits their drone strikes, to decrease their signature strikes, to psych the high value targets
based on the behaviour of the militant group. However, in November 2013 after the
assassination of Hakimullah Mehsud, the drone strikes increased in number again which led
to the CIA director John Brennan posted in Islamabad, to be tried for murder. Since then the
attacks had stopped for a period of 6 months after 13 people were killed again in June 2014
which was again condemned by Pakistan as a breach of its sovereignty29. On July 16, 2014
Pakistan itself conducted a drone attack to kill armed militants in North Waziristan30.
2.5 Impact of the U.S. Drone attacks on Pakistan
The US drone attacks since 2004 have leads to the death over 3000 militants from
different terrorist organisations like Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Haqqani
network and others among which 75 were at least high-value leaders whose assassination has
wiped out an entire terrorist group or community. As per the quantitative analysis of US
27 Delmont, Matt. "Drone encounters: Noor Behram, Omer Fast, and visual critiques of drone
warfare." American Quarterly 65.1 (2013): 193-202.
28 Bergen, Peter, and Katherine Tiedemann. "Washington's Phantom War: The Effects of the US Drone
Programs in Pakistan." Foreign Aff. 90 (2011): 12.
29 Plaw, Avery, and Matthew S. Fricker. "Tracking the predators: Evaluating the US drone campaign in
Pakistan." International Studies Perspectives 13.4 (2012): 344-365.
30 Ibid.

21U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
drone attacks in Pakistan carried out by a postdoctoral fellow in Stanford University,
Asfandyar Mir and Dylan Moore, the recent drone attack program was associated with the
reduction of 51 to 86 casualties and 9 to 13 insurgent attacks a month in the affected area,
which was much higher before with 21 attacks and hundred casualties every month. Carnegie
Endowment fellow and Political scientist, Aquil shah conducted a study on the impact of
drone attacks on local people which was published in the International security journal in
2018. Shah's interview and survey data collected from Pakistan stated that there was
negligible evidence as to the impact of drone attacks on the militant Islamist recruitment,
locally or nationally. Shah's study shows the significance of variables like economic and
political grievances, Pakistan counter-terrorism policies, the repression of the population,
force recruitment of youth by militant groups, et cetera. The study strived to make an account
of the domestic Islamic terrorists and its impact in Europe and United States. A survey
conducted in 2016 for taking feedback on the innumerable drone strikes on the North
Waziristan region held that 79% off of the people voted in the poll supported us drone
attacks31. It was supported by the majority that the repeated us drone attacks broke the
backbone of Pakistani Taliban.
Culturally and socially, Pakistan's tribal regions differ distinctly from the remainder
of the nation and from Western contemporary cultures. These regions run on a handful tribal
customs known as pashtunawali32. One of the old traditions is called as badal, whereby killing
the people who kill one's own friends or relatives is essential. As a consequence, drone
attacks that took away the lives of innocent people may lead victims ' (generally masculine)
family members and friends to join activists in those regions to take vengeance on the U.S.
and its allies, the entities they see as deserving of it. One result of these assaults is therefore
31 Shah, Sikander Ahmed. "War on terrorism: Self defense, operation enduring freedom, and the legality of US
drone attacks in Pakistan." Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 9 (2010): 77.
32 Harrison, Selig S. "The Pashtun time bomb." The New York Times 1 (2007).

22U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
the development of more enemies than one eliminated in the first location. Another result of
these strikes is that the social fabric of the FATA culture may be damaged. Only on the
grounds of sound intelligence can the predators attack and in many instances, data comes
from human sources working in the land. After drone attacks, it is regular for activists to
execute people labelled as spies in that region. This adds to distorting social cohesion and
putting the traditional structures down of a society, as each strike triggers a search for those
who may have been involved in enabling it. This response to the spies or those who hire
them renders the community's social and moral fabric. A society facilitated by informers,
spies, compromised friends, murder subverts highly held regarding about tintegrity, honour,
trust and allegiance that hold together traditional cultures.' These adverse impacts on tribal
societies ' social cohesion contributes to the creation of an environment of chaos and
lawlessness.
Harrison (2007), a prominent South Asian scholar (and Pakistan particularly), held
that the American drone strikes in the tribal settlements may exacerbate the age old separatist
sentiments between the Pashtuns on both the side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border away
from their respective host countries and towards each other. Pakistan's Pashtuns have charged
Islamabad's Punjabi-led government for depriving them of their rights33.
The tribal regions of Pakistan are organized on a patriarchal system in which tribes
and their leaders are in charge of everyone's wellbeing and security. This is the manner by
which harmony was kept up in these zones before the Pakistani government's association in
the zone following the beginning of the war on fear-based oppression. The region of FATA
lacks what might be compared to police, and lawfulness has mostly been ensured by the
ancestral boss depending on the assistance of inexactly comprised inborn local armies.
Nonetheless, in the present situation, the automaton assaults have caused various losses
without the innate boss or the Pakistani government having the option to ensure the regular
33 Harrison, Selig S. "The Pashtun time bomb." The New York Times 1 (2007).

23U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
folks. This, thusly, has brought about the estrangement of nearby individuals whose help is
viewed as noteworthy in the achievement of the present war on psychological oppression –
not an empowering outcome of the approach of utilizing ramble34. One of the factors for
increasing the amount of terrorist attacks against Pakistani civilians and safety forces across
the nation is the use of predator drone strikes. The Pakistani army has quoted drone attacks as
a reason why Pakistani society has been constantly attacked by terrorists trained in FATA.
Numerous drone strikes have been carried out over the years, but the insurgency in FATA
and southern Afghanistan does not weakens.
President Obama went into the White House with the objectives of concentrating on
the war against Afghanistan along with helping Pakistan to turn into a steady and majority
rule sovereign state. One noteworthy result of the drone attacks has been to undermine that
very objective of America's Pakistan arrangement. These assaults have regularly been
condemned by the non-military personnel pioneers of Pakistan and on May 2011, the
National Assembly of Pakistan passed a goal expressing that the one-sided activities,
including the drone assaults on the domain of Pakistan, are unsuitable and denotes
infringement of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and
human rights and such drone strikes must be ceased with immediate effect.
2.6 Legality of the U.S. Drone attacks
In judging the legality of the US drone attacks, it is believed that such assaults could
be legitimate on the off chance that they were taken in the accompanying conditions: with
unequivocal assent by the Pakistani government; under the approval by the U.N. Security
Council; as self-preservation against non-state actors working from Pakistan; or as self-
protection against Pakistan itself. Murphy has sorted the drone surgical strikes as a kind of
cross-outskirt assaults led by Washington against the Pakistani sovereignty35. There are
34 Harrison, Selig S. "The Pashtun time bomb." The New York Times 1 (2007).
35 Murphy, Sean D. "The international legality of US military cross-border operations from Afghanistan into
Pakistan." International Law Studies (US Naval War College) 84 (2009).

24U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
different instances of such assaults, for example, the ground invasions directed so as to seek
after the Taliban who assault the alliance powers in Afghanistan and returned to stow away in
Pakistan, and secretive extraordinary powers tasks inside Pakistan to catch speculated
psychological militants there36. The government of Pakistan has energetically and completely
condemned the ground-level attacks and military operations inside its region and has made it
very evident that the US has led such activities without its consent. The issue of drone attacks
is generally unclear and, as indicated by Murphy, they could be legitimate on the off chance
that they have been approved by the Pakistani government – in reality a few assaults are even
led from Shamsi Airbase in Baluchistan37. Expecting that they are carried out with the
authorization of the Pakistan government, these surgical attacks would be viewed as
legitimate in light of the fact that 'standard principles on state duty acknowledge that direct
does not disregard a commitment to a state if that state has assented to the lead.38
Concerning the drone attacks, the Pakistani Prime Minister and the leader of Pakistan
have over and over denounced the allegation as to Pakistan government favouring the US
drone attacks and have carefully tested the attestations that the drone attacks may have been
approved by the Pakistani government39. After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Pakistan was advised
to cooperate by Washington in the war against terrorism or set itself up to be besieged 'into
the Stone Age'40. In such conditions, it very well may be construed not just that there is an
absence of clear verification that the attacks are directed with the authorization of the
government of Pakistan, yet additionally if the Pakistanis have liked to see it in other sense,
in case of such assaults, it would be a doubtful contention to state that Pakistan has given
36 Ibid.
37 Johnston, Patrick B., and Anoop K. Sarbahi. "The impact of US drone strikes on terrorism in
Pakistan." International Studies Quarterly 60.2 (2016): 203-219.
38 Murphy, Sean D. "The international legality of US military cross-border operations from Afghanistan into
Pakistan." International Law Studies (US Naval War College) 84 (2009).
39 Aslam, Muhammad W. "A critical evaluation of American drone strikes in Pakistan: legality, legitimacy and
prudence." Critical Studies on Terrorism4.3 (2011): 313-329.
40 Reid, Tim. "President Obama ‘orders Pakistan drone attacks’." The Times 23 (2009).

25U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
consent for these assaults based on its own through and through freedom – particularly when
looked with such a lurking danger as above. Moreover, given that the government of Pakistan
is subject to the budgetary help of the US for carrying out its everyday undertakings, it has
minimal possibility of confronting its real subsidizing accomplice so as to stop these strikes.
In short, the legal validity of drone attacks in the premise that these assaults may have been in
light of a call for assistance by the Pakistani government or with its consent, can be marked
questionable. The story would be distinctive had these assaults been approved by the Security
Council. As far as concerns its, the Security Council approved numerous goals concerning
the circumstance in the district after the assaults of 9/11, yet none of them can be advanced as
authorisation to lead drone attacks in Pakistan.41
2.6.1 Concerns of the United Nations Human Rights Council
The legitimacy of drone attacks might be demonstrated by Article 51 of the United
Nation’s Charter that may enable the US to react to cross-fringe aggressor assaults planned
for focusing on the alliance powers in Afghanistan. On June 2009, the United Nations Human
Rights Council (UNHRC) conveyed a report forcefully reproachful of US strategies. The
report stated that the US government has neglected to monitor non-military personnel
setbacks of its military tasks, including the drone attacks, and to give intends to residents of
influenced countries to get data about the losses and any legitimate examinations with respect
to them. Any such data held by the U.S. military is purportedly out of reach to general society
because of the abnormal state of mystery encompassing the drone attack program. The US
agent at UNHRC has contended that the UN specialist for extrajudicial, outline or subjective
executions does not have ward over US military activities, while another US representative
asserted that the US military is researching any bad behaviour and doing everything it can to
outfit data about the civilian deaths.
41 Murphy, Sean D. "The international legality of US military cross-border operations from Afghanistan into
Pakistan." International Law Studies (US Naval War College) 84 (2009).

26U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
On October 2009 UNHRC Officer Philip Alston approached the US to show that it
was not arbitrarily murdering individuals infringing upon international law through its
utilization of fighter drones on the Afghan outskirt. Alston censured the US's refusal to react
to date to the UN's worries. On June 2010 Alston's group discharged a report on its
examination concerning the automaton strikes, scrutinizing the United States for being "the
most productive client of focused killings" on the planet. Alston, notwithstanding, recognized
that the automaton assaults might be defended under the privilege of self-preservation. He
approached the US to be progressively open about the program. Alston's report was
submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the next day. On June 2012,
following a four-day visit to Pakistan, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay
required another examination concerning US automaton strikes in Pakistan, over and over
alluding to the assaults as "aimless," and said that the assaults establish human rights
infringement.
For Murphy the lawful reason for such negative marks against Al Qaeda or the
Taliban as reaction to the assaults of 9/11 would be 'risky'42. In any case, they might be
advocated on the off chance that they are directed as demonstrations of self-preservation in
light of explicit (presently visit) assaults against the alliance powers in southern
Afghanistan43. In any case, American predators have focused on aggressors (like Baitullah
Mehsud) who have been battling the Pakistani state and not against the alliance powers
fundamentally. This throws questions on the legitimateness of these assaults since utilization
of automatons isn't constantly connected to explicit assaults in Afghanistan. To the extent
preemptive activity is concerned, a state might be permitted to act on the off chance that it
had 'no selection of methods and no snapshot of consultation,' as expressed by the US
42 Murphy, Sean D. "The international legality of US military cross-border operations from Afghanistan into
Pakistan." International Law Studies (US Naval War College) 84 (2009).
43 Murphy, Sean D. "The international legality of US military cross-border operations from Afghanistan into
Pakistan." International Law Studies (US Naval War College) 84 (2009).

27U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Secretary of State Daniel Webster44.This rule, however, does not have any significance on
account of Pakistan where the US has led various assaults up until now45.
In the end, the legitimacy of these activities could be advocated as activities of self-
preservation against the assaults by Pakistani state itself46. They would be legitimate in the
conditions in which a relationship was demonstrated between the Pakistani state and activists
focusing on America based on the benchmark set somewhere around the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua Case in 1986 (Waisberg 2009, pp. 480-1).
2.7 Summary
The literature review, therefore, lays down the relevant data and information
that has been discussed by different scholars and researchers through their respective
researches. The researcher in this section has tried to gather the relevant information about
US drone attacks in Pakistan, so that the thematic analysis of the legality of it could be
conducted in chapter 4. The literature review has comprised the viewpoint of both the
countries involved in the scenario, having contention regarding the necessity and the impact
of the drone attacks over Pakistan, which not only killing armed groups but also hurting the
civilians and tribal people residing in the FATA.
44 Davies, Nicolas JS. "The Caroline case and American drone strikes in Pakistan." Peace Review 21.4 (2009):
429-436.
45 Davies, Nicolas JS. "The Caroline case and American drone strikes in Pakistan." Peace Review 21.4 (2009):
429-436.
46 Murphy, Sean D. "The international legality of US military cross-border operations from Afghanistan into
Pakistan." International Law Studies (US Naval War College) 84 (2009).

28U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Overview
This section talks about the different methodologies and tools, which are fundamental
to conduct the analysis. Among various apparatuses and plans of procedure, the researcher
especially refers to the particular research philosophy, design, approach, strategy and data
collection method that are utilized in the research to arrive at the aim of the study. The
researcher talks about the ethical consideration and the different limitations that went along
the way while preparing the paper. Therefore, the following methodologies would help the
researcher in investigating the legality of US drone attacks in Pakistan.
3.2 Research Outline
In this study, the researcher would take the help of the philosophy of interpretivism, a
deductive approach, and a descriptive design of research. The investigator purposefully
selects such methodologies in order to achieve the objective and aim of the research
effectively. Secondary sources such as books, journal articles, public websites, organization's
official website and other genuine and peer-reviewed sources assist collect particular and
relevant data for the research. Qualitative research analysis would be carried out with the help
of thematic analysis of the collected data and information.
3.3 Research Philosophy
The most common philosophy used to conduct study studies is positivism,
pragmatism and interpretation. Positivism enables the study to be carried out using a
scientific approach, which helps to ensure that the collected data are relevant, valid and
accurate47. Interpretivism enables the acceptance of opinions and perspective of different
scholars and researchers on comparable topics to be considered and thus helps the researcher
47 Khan, Shahid N. "Qualitative research method: Grounded theory." International Journal of Business and
Management 9.11 (2014): 224-233.

29U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
to justify the research results. Pragmatism, on the other side, is a mixture of positivism and
interpretation48.
In this paper, the researcher has used the interpretivism philosophy for conducting a
qualitative research in finding out the legality of US drone attacks in Pakistan.
3.4 Research Approach
Inductive and deductive research approaches are usually used to conduct long studies.
The researcher creates fresh ideas and theories in case of inductive strategy that helps to
sustain the research49. It does, however, include the probability that erroneous theories will be
formed based on findings that are left to be proved as correct. While the deductive strategy
enables the researcher deduce the results and observations of multiple researchers' pre-
existing research that have already been proven50.
In this research, the researcher uses the deductive method for analyzing the already
researched material on this topic that is available under various secondary sources. This way,
the researcher shall be sure of the authenticity of the relevance and accuracy of the collected
data on the basis of which the thematic analysis to ascertain the legality of US drone attacks
in Pakistan will be conducted.
3.5 Research Design
Explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive are some of the frequently used study
models that make precise and efficient study work easier for the scientist. Explanatory
research design focuses on explaining all the distinct phenomena engaged in the study
process. Explanatory research design allows a scientist to clarify the reasons for the presence
of the factors or variables in the study, which is the appropriate data collected by the
researcher in the second chapter, literature review. Exploratory research design, however,
48 Mackey, Alison, and Susan M. Gass. Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge, 2015.
49 Lewis, Sarah. "Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches." Health promotion
practice16.4 (2015): 473-475.
50 Vaioleti, Timote M. "Talanoa research methodology: A developing position on Pacific research." Waikato
Journal of Education 12 (2006).

30U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
provides the researcher an opportunity to go through the unexplored areas as well as the
likely study topic-related problems, thereby helping to identify the research gaps that have
not been studied by other researcher and therefore need to be filled by the researcher51.
Descriptive research design is the selected research design for the purpose of this
research that the investigator thinks to suit best for this study. It is a mixture of explanatory
and exploratory research design that allows study to explore fresh study topic horizons and
identify a study gap in current study as well as provide sufficient justification and explanation
to support the variables present in the studies52. It would help to analyse descriptively the
reasons to believe that the US drones attacks could be illegal. It would also help the
researcher to find the research gap for the future researchers who would conduct a research
on a similar topic in order to explore the newer avenues.
3.6 Data Collection Process
Primary and secondary data collection methods are the significant methods to collect
appropriate data and information in order to undertake a study job. In the process of primary
data collection, the researcher has the opportunity to collect raw and recent information from
individuals who participate by providing personal experiences to carry forward the research53.
The researcher gathers data from people or a big population, takes their views into
consideration the goals and goals of the study. While the secondary data collection method
includes data and information gathered from various secondary sources such as books,
newspaper articles, formal organization websites, public websites, established newspapers
and some other internet-generated information that is precise, authentic and relevant to the
study's purpose54.
51 Panneerselvam, R. "Research Methodology, PHI Learning Pvt." (2014).
52 Smith, Jonathan A., ed. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Sage, 2015.
53 Gale, Nicola K., et al. "Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary
health research." BMC medical research methodology 13.1 (2013): 117.
54 Reynolds, David, et al., eds. Advances in school effectiveness research and practice. Elsevier, 2014.

31U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
The secondary data collection method appears to be the most appropriate method
for this study for collecting the required data and information needed for research purposes.
By this method, the researcher would collect data from journals, books, newspapers,
government websites, and official website of international organisation that provides
information of the US drone attacks on Pakistan since 2004.
3.7 Data Analysis
The two kinds of data analysis method that are commonly used in study work are
qualitative and quantitative. The method of qualitative data analysis enables the scientist to
investigate the study topic's quality and value or study gap. It also enables the investigator
analyse critically the data gathered from secondary sources. On the other hand, the process of
using statistical data to analyse the information gathered is defined by quantitative data
analysis method. Furthermore, the method of quantitative data analysis enables with logical
reasoning and justification to interpret statistical data.
In this research paper, qualitative data analysis process has been chosen to evaluate
the standpoint of both the countries in deciding the fact whether the US drone attacks in
Pakistan are legal. It would also help the researcher to form the themes of the thematic
analysis in order to fulfill the aims and objectives of the research, along with providing the
research statement that was frame in chapter 1.
3.8 Ethical Consideration
It is essential that the researcher complies with the ethical standards of undertaking a
study because it would maintain the genuineness and precision of the study result.
Confidentiality of data is one of the most important ethical factors for study objectives and
goals55. Data and information gathered as a literature review for the research must be held
confidential. It needs to be shielded from being disclosed in any case, as this would ruin the
55 Cacciattolo, Marcelle. "Ethical considerations in research." The Praxis of English Language Teaching and
Learning (PELT). Brill Sense, 2015. 55-73.

32U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
genuineness of the study. In case of secondary source of data collection method, it is essential
to obtain appropriate and precise information from genuine and reliable sources. Information
accuracy would guarantee that the study is easily validated and accepted by the academics
and fellow researchers.
It is essential to restrict data manipulation with utmost significance. Manipulating the
data collected would distort the genuineness of the research work that the researcher has been
putting on for a long time and effort56. The researcher's collected data and information must
be for scholarly purposes only.
The data gathered from secondary sources such as books, journal articles and other
researcher's published documents should not be used for business purposes as it would be
against ethical factors as well as illegitimate. Nevertheless, in case a pre-existing research is
referred to in subsequent studies, the researcher is required acknowledge the aforementioned
researches that he/she has referred to, as otherwise it would be deemed as plagiarism, which
destroys the genuineness of the study and breaches the research ethics57.
3.9 Limitations
While undertaking the research, the researcher faced certain barriers to keep up with
the ethical factors. Research barriers such as time limitations and restricted budget have been
a severe issue. Moreover, several formal websites have been discovered to be blocked or have
been requested to subscribe to access the data from them. The research has been hampered to
some extent by a limited budget because the researchers could not afford to subscribe to such
expensive legal websites to collect data from important yet expensive sources that provides
the most accurate and sensitive statistical data and information pertaining to the US drone
attacks in Pakistan.
56
57 Connelly, Lynne M. "Ethical considerations in research studies." Medsurg Nursing23.1 (2014): 54-56.

33U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
3.10 Summary
Therefore, the researcher has selected the specific methodological tools and methods
in this section of research methodology that facilitated the more accurate and efficient
conduct of the research. The above research design, approach, information collection and
method of analysing helped the researcher to select the specific way of conducting this study
in order to reach a destination which would analyse the legality of US drone attack in
Pakistan.

34U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Chapter 4: Thematic Analysis
4.1 Overview
In this chapter, the research strives to interpret and analyze the information that has
been collected in the chapter 2 by way of thematic analysis process, which analyze the
variables that are essential for establishing the research aims, objective and statement that
were framed in chapter 1. The researcher collected the different areas of data and information
from the different secondary sources as laid down under chapter 3 along with the help of
different research philosophy, approach and design. The thematic analysis assists the
researcher in evaluating the gathered data for conducting the study. Furthermore, thematic
analysis enables to evaluate statistical data by comparing the variables with secondary
resource information.
4.2 Theme 1: Effects of U.S. Drone Attacks
The effect of the U.S. Drone attacks could be evaluate on the basis of the gathered
statistical data from various researchers and their journal articles, books and manuscripts, and
also from the official website of certain data storing websites and international bodies.
The US drone attacks since 2004 have leads to the death over 3000 militants from
different terrorist organisations like Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Haqqani
network and others among which 75 were at least high-value leaders whose assassination has
wiped out an entire terrorist group or community. As per the quantitative analysis of US
drone attacks in Pakistan carried out by a postdoctoral fellow in Stanford University,
Asfandyar Mir and Dylan Moore, the recent drone attack program was associated with the
reduction of 51 to 86 casualties and 9 to 13 insurgent attacks a month in the affected area,
which was much higher before with 21 attacks and hundred casualties every month. A survey
conducted in 2016 for taking feedback on the innumerable drone strikes on the north

35U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Waziristan region held that 79% off of the people voted in the poll supported us drone
attacks. it was supported by the majority that the repeated us drone attacks broke the
backbone of Pakistani Taliban.
The effect of the U.S drone attacks on Pakistan could be held as growing with the
passing year, until 2014 by the help of statistical evidences and graphs provided by the New
America Organization which elaborately shows the comparison of the number and casualties
of drone attacks since 2004 to 201458.
Figure 1: US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, by year of Presidential candidature
Source: New America Organization
George W Bush, the then US President had made drone attacks a common tool for
surveillance and surgical strike over Pakistan due to the innumerable terrorist attacks and
mass killing by several terrorist groups of Pakistan. The incidence of drone attacks were
58 'Drone Strikes: Pakistan' (New America Organization, 2019)
<https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/americas-counterterrorism-wars/pakistan/> accessed 31 August 2019

36U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
increased with time by George Bush’s successor, President Barack Obama who increased the
target against Pakistan and its government who had been harbouring the terrorist groups, even
though they had made a friendly deal with the Bush government. President Obama went into
the White House with the objectives of concentrating over the war against Afghanistan and
aiding Pakistan to turn into a steady and majority rule sovereign state. One noteworthy result
of the drone attacks has been to undermine that very objective of America's Pakistan
arrangement. These assaults have regularly been condemned by the non-military personnel
pioneers of Pakistan.
Figure 2: US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, by combatant status
Source: New America Organization
Moreover, the effect of US drone attacks could also be evaluated from the graphs
created by the New America Organization that clearly shows the number of armed militants

37U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
killed is way more than the number of civilians who dead during the strategic attacks. Even
though, it could be stated that a number of civilians lost their lives in this matter, however, it
is undeniable that the number of militants that have been killed is significant, as had they
been alive, they would have killed many more innocent lives than the number of civilians
who died in the drone attack59.
Figure 3: US Drone Strikes in FATA
Source: New America Organization
Through the span of the drone attacks in Pakistan, the objectives of strikes started to
change. While in excess of 33% of the Bush organization's strikes focused on Al Qaeda, that
rate had dropped considerably by the Obama organization which targeted the Pakistan
Taliban and was supplanted by a more noteworthy extent of strikes focusing on the Pakistani
Taliban and Haqqani Network by the Trump government.
59 'Drone Strikes: Pakistan' (New America Organization, 2019)
<https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/americas-counterterrorism-wars/pakistan/> accessed 31 August 2019

38U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Figure 4: Groups Targeted by Strikes, by Administration
Source: New America Organization
Under the Bush organization, the drone attacks remained generally restricted in
Pakistan until 2008, when the organization started to raise the number of strikes. The Obama
organization kept on raising strikes, topping in 2010 and after that starting a moderate decay
until 2016 when the Obama organization directed just three known strikes in Pakistan. On
May 21, 2016, the United States directed its last drone attacks in Pakistan under Obama,
slaughtering then-Taliban pioneer Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan. No strikes were
directed over the most recent eight months of the organization. On January 20, 2017, Donald
Trump progressed toward becoming president and acquired drone attacks in Pakistan that had
ended. On March 2, the Trump organization led its first strike in Pakistan after an over nine-
month interval in strikes. Therefore, a summation of the attacks since 2004 till today,
conducted by the CIA under the different Presidents could be represented in a tabular form in
order to see it at a glance60.
60 'Drone Strikes: Pakistan' (New America Organization, 2019)
<https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/americas-counterterrorism-wars/pakistan/> accessed 31 August 2019

39U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Figure 5: total number of Strikes
Source: New America Organization
As per the military report of the US, the Al-Qaeda has been systematically uprooted
by the help of these attacks and the number of terrorist attacks has decreased to a significant
level in the US. Senator John McCain and Joe Lieberman in 2010 commented that the drone
surgical strikes helpful and therefore U.S. would keep up with it, with an effort to restrict
collateral damage. In order to rectify and strengthen the relationship with the Pakistan
government, the US had even shared its drone surveillance data with Pakistan in 2010, as
committed by Mike Mullen, a top US military officer61.
4.3 Theme 2: Rationale behind the standpoint of U.S. and Pakistan
The rationale behind the Drone attack has been justified by US and condemned by
Pakistan for guarding their respective standpoints to safeguard each other. For both them it is
matter of self-defence that they reserve as per the Article 51 of chapter VII of the United
Nations Charter. US has justified its course of action by the 9/11 terrorist attack conducted
by Osama Bin Laden that led America resort to the ‘last option’ of aerial bombing which
subsequently developed with advanced technology and became drone strikes. The incidence
61 'Drone Strikes: Pakistan' (New America Organization, 2019)
<https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/americas-counterterrorism-wars/pakistan/> accessed 31 August 2019

40U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
of drone attacks were increased with time by George Bush’s successor, President Barack
Obama who increased the target against Pakistan and its government who had been
harbouring the terrorist groups, even though they had made a friendly deal with the Bush
government. Leon Panetta, the then director of the CIA in 2009 had indicated that the
surgical strikes of drone attacks will continue and it was mention that the drone attacks war
targeting Baitullah Mehsud. The Obama government mentioned that it was the failure of the
Pakistani government to keep track of its terrorist activities in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas. In this regard the United States pointed out that it is their right of self-defence
as per Article 51 of chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
The Signature Strikes have been pointed out as an extremely mindful and strategic
planning that runs on logical, political agenda and international law. This sensible and logical
move has been pointed out as a tactics that have resulted in fewer deaths, affecting the low
value fighters of the terrorist groups and Pakistani civilians a lot lesser than what it had
caused before. The tactics of ‘Signature Strike’ include proper information collected from a
communication intercept, a clear view of militants training camps, and certain other
supporting evidences which confirms the presence of a high-value target (an important
terrorist leader or coordinator). However, it has been criticized by Drone critics who have
pointed out that it is easy to mistaken civilian behaviour with militant signatures.
Pakistan in its defence has highlighted the fact that it has been unable take measures
against the terrorists in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) as this area has been
under the nominal control of Pakistan. Pakistan has been unable to conduct a counter
terrorism operation in FATA due to the prevailing independence pertaining to the foundation
of the state. Therefore the US has always considered Pakistan's effort to eradicate Taliban and
Al Qaeda as half-hearted. The Pakistani news reporters, intellectuals, bureaucrats and
government leaders has been vocal about the violation of international law by the U.S forces

41U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
and held that such incidences would not be tolerated by exercising the right to self defence as
a counter attack. Terrorist groups and its leaders like Baitullah Mehsud have been targeted
since a long time. On September 2008 a Pakistani army spokesman protested against the
Washington’s drone attack strategies of killing innocent Pakistani civilians and threatened
America to be prepared for a retaliatory action from Pakistan’s end.
However, counter-arguments could be held as to the order given by major general
Ghayur Mahmood on 'myths and rumours about US predator strikes' where he mentioned that
the US drone strikes mostly killed Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and not civilians. This
strategy could be e interpreted as an attempt to console the range of the Pakistani civilians
who were both angry with the US government as well as their own government. On
December 2011, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the then Pakistan’s army Chief gives an order to
shoot down US drones and to treat any object entering into the air space of Pakistan as hostile
and therefore shall be shot down.
Therefore, it could be interpreted that both the states are speaking rationally from their
individual perspectives as they both have the right to self-defence. However, to justify the
provisions of international law and human right, sacrificing the lives of innocent civilians
cannot be justified by the argument of self-defence by any state. America cannot deny that
the fact they have costed the lives of innocent civilians in order to strike against the terrorist
leaders and their groups that have been hiding in FATA. On the contrary, it has been pointed
out by the US that if it had not taken the terrorists down, those same terrorists would have
spread terrorism and would have taken the lives of millions, all over the world. Therefore, it
was pointed out by the US that their approach to adopt the drone attacks as last resort should
be appreciated and not condemned.
4.4 Theme 3: The Question of Legality
Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum

42U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Jus ad bellum refers to the Right to war while Jus in Bello is the Laws of War that are
engaged with the notion of legality of drone attacks in Pakistan. A drone strike officer had
mentioned that in his overall career life he had not seen preparation as per the laws of war.
Another military attorney had said that he has encountered three days of preparation as
indicated by the International Law during his military course. On the off chance that the
legitimacy of drone strikes in Pakistan is addressed, the main factor that will be watched is
Jus ad Bellum which will show that whether the U.S. has the option to utilize these assaults
inside the region of Pakistan. Jus ad Bellum gives insight that the drone attacks are directed
for the correct aim, right expectation, under real specialist, as far as proportionality, if all else
fails and for there is likelihood of achievement. Every one of these things get cleared by an
outline of UN Charter, International Law, general principles and the provisions of
International Court of Justice in appropriate cases. Subsequent to getting a reasonable image
of these things, it is seen that this power can be utilized if it satisfies the necessity of Jus ad
Bellum. Jus in Bello are rules and regulations of war, which clarifies how power ought to be
utilized. The insights about the utilization method for wielding power if there should arise an
occurrence of drone surgical strikes could be derived from International Law, International
Court of Justice, and International Human Rights.
UN Charter on Drone Attacks
The privilege to utilize power is restricted by the UN Charter and is permitted
uniquely under explicit conditions. Article 2(4) of UN Charter denies the utilization of power
aside from under certain base level. It expresses "All Members will abstain in their global
relations from the risk or utilization of power against the regional uprightness or then again
political freedom of any state, or in some other way conflicting with the reasons for the
United Nations". The particular circumstances under which a nation can utilize power are

43U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
referenced in part 7, article 51. Under a condition, the Security Board is permitted to utilize
power if there is danger to harmony or global security. The subsequent circumstance would
be that if an outfitted assault occurs, the nation can use power because of self-protection until
the Security Council takes measure to keep up harmony and worldwide security. U.S. utilized
power against Afghanistan in 2001 for the sake of self-protection advocate under Article 51.
On the other hand the Afghanistan government requested help from the U.S.
government, and in this manner, the U.S. association in Afghanistan has been supported.
Pakistan is likewise associated with welcoming the U.S. for assistance however the
solicitations was not declared publically or formally. However, in Yemen, such help was not
requested from U.S. In addition, U.S. claims that the drone strikes are led on the basis of pre-
emptive self-preservation. Such self-preservation is neither supported by the UN Charter nor
by the international human rights.
The Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over the drone attacks
Power in any form of armed rebellion must be utilized to the extent of the assault
accordingly for which the power is attempted. The utilization of power for the sake of self-
preservation is not talked about under the UN Charter. In any case, the International Court of
Justice has discussed it during the Nuclear Weapon case that the self-preservation must be in
extent to the furnished assault. It is a standard which is settled in the International Law. The
International Court of Justice announced by consistent vote that "Any utilization of power by
methods for atomic weapons that is in opposition to Article 2, section 4 of the United Nations
Charter also, that neglects to meet every one of the necessities of Article 51, is unlawful".
In 1986, the International Court of Justice favored Nicaragua when the U.S. made use
of power for the sake of self-protection. Around then, the International Court of Justice
obviously expressed that a demonstration which prompted utilization of power for self-

44U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
preservation must act naturally accounted as furnished assault. It implies that states can
utilize power for a cautious reason in reference to self-protection and furthermore the state
against which the power is utilized must be lawfully in charge of the furnished assault62.
To the extent the cross-outskirt attack is concerned, the instance of Congo versus
Uganda is significant in which ICJ gave governing on the side of Congo. The issue was with
the end goal that there was an equipped gathering in Congo acting against Uganda and
Uganda reacted to that gathering by entering the region of Congo. As per the International
Court of Justice, Uganda had breached Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Guarded activities
should be taken by Uganda by staying inside its very own regions not by assaulting the
Congolese domain. This implies a state must not be assaulted or its domain must not be
disregarded if the state isn't pronounced to be engaged with the outfitted gatherings.
International human rights and Drone Attacks
International Human Rights Law too denies the application of force and power by the
government against a particular armed group. The military power of a state can be utilized
only when it is considered that the terror spread by the armed group is extreme. As per
Murphy, even a state looks for assistance from some other state on any International
Association, the helping state or association is liable to offer that much power as it itself is
permitted to use. International Human Rights Law is resorted to in all kinds of armed
conflict. International Human Rights Law Standards for the Law Enforcement permits the
utilization of guns in terms of self-defense becomes necessary, the anticipation of genuine
danger to life or capturing an individual who might be threatening, provided that in every one
of these cases less outrageous measures have been demonstrated inadequately.
62 Connelly, Lynne M. "Ethical considerations in research studies." Medsurg Nursing23.1 (2014): 54-56.

45U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Violation of Pakistan’s Sovereignty
Infringement of Pakistan's power is the significant worry for the commentators of
drone surgical strikes driven by U.S. in Pakistan. These assaults are always abusing the
regional power of Pakistan under the International Law. International Law characterizes
power of a nation and furthermore expresses that "State has sway over its domain and the
attack into its region by the military of some other State without authorization is considered
as rupture of universal law". International Law refuses the utilization of power against
another state even if the assaulted state has given its assent or the assaulting state is reacting
in the event that of self-preservation.
4.5 Summary
Therefore, by analyzing the statistical data and graphs, it could be interpreted that not
only the victim state, but also various International bodies and regulations like the United
Nations, International Court of Justice, the International Human Rights Law rigidly opposed
drone attacks. Even though drone strikes aim to kill the deadly terrorists
and their armed militant groups, yet the collateral damage that comes along with it is strictly
criticized by the international players around the world. Thus, it could be interpreted that the
drone attacks conducted by the United States is to be considered illegal to a great extent, even
though it talks about self-defense and freeing the world of deadly terrorists.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
5.1 Overview
This chapter would include the conclusion that has been drawn from the detailed
analysis of the research topic. The findings show that it is illegal on the United States’ part to
conduct drone attacks continuously even though it means no harm to the common people of
Pakistan. However, the United States cannot defend the innocent lives from sudden drone

46U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
strikes under the excuse that it ought to defend its own countrymen from the hands of
terrorists. The conclusion makes a detailed discussion on this matter along with laying down
certain recommendations that could be implemented by Pakistan in order to address and
resolve the issues of drone attacks.
5.2 Conclusion
After analysing the information on purposes of the legitimacy of drone strikes in
Pakistan, it very well may be inferred that the lawfulness of drone surgical strikes cannot be
defended by the American government based on self-defence under the authoritative records
concerned. Despite the fact that if Pakistan has given its permission to U.S. subtly, it has not
been publicly declared. Therefore, this implies that the situation of U.S. drone attacks still has
an illicit concern. U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan can be seen as a wrong advance as it has
made U.S. open to international analysis and criticism. As Pakistan did not give its official
assent, in this regard it could be said that the U.S. is abusing the sway of Pakistan. U.S. is
additionally disregarding the International Law and Human rights by the inadvertent blow-
back being finished by drone attacks. In addition, U.S. is utilizing rambles for pre-emptive
self-preservation which means power against fear based oppressors however that power is not
just hitting fear mongers however the region of a sovereign nation just as regular people of
that nation which has not been permitted by any law regardless of self-preservation. Then
again, the administration of Pakistan likewise does not appear to be worried about this issue
in light of the fact that being a sovereign state Pakistan has the full opportunity to raise voice
in case some other nation attempts to overpower its laws inside its own territory; however,
Pakistan does not raised its protesting voice on the International grounds officially. This
frame of mind of Pakistan's administration demonstrates it to be incapable in controlling
drone attacks in its own areas. So, the issue lies in demonstrations of both U.S. and Pakistan.
Therefore, US is not only responsible for its innumerable drone attacks, but Pakistan is also

47U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
to be held responsible for its ineffectiveness to mitigate the issue as well as for its double
standard that it kept with both US and the common people to whom it hid all the information
of drone attacks.
This research, therefore, contends that the approach of utilizing predator strikes can't
be marked as a dependable position when estimated against the benchmarks of lawfulness,
authenticity and reasonability. Given the multifaceted nature of the circumstance in the
district, utilizing the automatons might be the 'least terrible approach decision' for now. Be
that as it may, only being the 'least-awful' choice or a 'compelling' strategy does not really
make these strikes some portion of a 'dependable' arrangement. All together for an activity to
be named as a 'capable' one, it must be evaluated in a lot more extensive structure –
something this commitment has done. It has focused on the need to not exclusively
concentrate on the count of a regular citizen or activist passing as the main benchmarks for
appraisal. To take the ordinarily held view that automaton strikes are 'great' on the off chance
that they hurt activists and 'awful' if regular people are influenced handles the issue of
dependable statecraft neither legitimately nor satisfactorily. This isn't to make light of non-
military personnel passing, yet all together for the strategy of automaton strikes to be
delegated a capable methodology, the unintended setbacks must be viewed as a component of
a lot more extensive system dependent on the thoughts of incredible power obligation. Such
discourse will likewise be basic when examining the eventual fate of this arrangement so as
to either make it progressively powerful or to relinquish it through and through. The use of
drones ought to be taken over by the US military from the CIA, as doing as such would
prompt military legal counsellors guaranteeing that strikes adjust to the laws of war, just as
ensuring foundation of a component through which payment could be paid for coincidental
harm to non-military personnel lives and properties. Whatever the eventual fate of this

48U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
methodology might be, in its present structure it cannot be portrayed as a mindful one when
purportedly advancing Washington's counterterrorism endeavours.
5.3 Recommendations
1) Pakistan ought to be clearer about its position towards automaton assaults by U.S.
on worldwide grounds for example in the event that Pakistan has any issue in regards to it, it
should refer to it to the universal network transparently.
2) Pakistan must utilize an open discretion towards U.S. concerning recompense of
automaton assaults in its region so the open stays clear about it.
3) U.S. ought to have requested that Security Council take activities in Pakistan rather
than doing it all alone. U.S. can at present embrace this strategy.
4) U.S. ought to have utilized automaton assaults if all else fails not the primary
conceivable alternative against psychological oppression particularly in some other's nation
domain.
5) U.S. furthermore, Pakistan both are casualties of fear-based oppression so as
opposed to scrutinizing one another, should work in joint effort yet principle of equity ought
to be embraced in this cooperation generally U.S. would do what it feels like doing in view of
its extraordinary forces.

49U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Bibliography
Books
Groves, Steven. Drone Strikes: The legality of US Targeting terrorists abroad. Heritage
Foundation, 2013.
Zenko, Micah. Reforming US drone strike policies. No. 65. Council on Foreign Relations,
2013.
Wan, William, and Peter Finn. "Global race on to match US drone capabilities." Washington
Post 4 (2011).
Journal articles
Allinson, Jamie. "The necropolitics of drones." International Political Sociology 9.2 (2015):
113-127.
Aslam, Muhammad W. "A critical evaluation of American drone strikes in Pakistan: legality,
legitimacy and prudence." Critical Studies on Terrorism4.3 (2011): 313-329.
Azhar, Wafa, and Khushboo Ejaz “Legality of US Drone Strikes in Pakistan.” Journal of
Politics and International Studies 1 (2015): 100-118.
Bergen, Peter, and Katherine Tiedemann. "The year of the drone." New America
Foundation 24 (2010).
Bergen, Peter, and Katherine Tiedemann. "Washington's Phantom War: The Effects of the
US Drone Programs in Pakistan." Foreign Aff. 90 (2011): 12.
Brooks, Rosa. "Drones and the international rule of law." Ethics & International Affairs 28.1
(2014): 83-103.
Cacciattolo, Marcelle. "Ethical considerations in research." The Praxis of English Language
Teaching and Learning (PELT). Brill Sense, 2015. 55-73.

50U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Callam, Andrew. "Drone wars: Armed unmanned aerial vehicles." International Affairs
Review 18.3 (2010).
Connelly, Lynne M. "Ethical considerations in research studies." Medsurg Nursing23.1
(2014): 54-56.
Davies, Nicolas JS. "The Caroline case and American drone strikes in Pakistan." Peace
Review 21.4 (2009): 429-436.
Delmont, Matt. "Drone encounters: Noor Behram, Omer Fast, and visual critiques of drone
warfare." American Quarterly 65.1 (2013): 193-202.
Enemark, Christian. "Drones over Pakistan: secrecy, ethics, and counterinsurgency." Asian
Security 7.3 (2011): 218-237.
Fair, C. Christine, Karl Kaltenthaler, and William J. Miller. "Pakistani opposition to
American drone strikes." Political Science Quarterly 129.1 (2014): 1-33.
Gale, Nicola K., et al. "Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in
multi-disciplinary health research." BMC medical research methodology 13.1 (2013): 117.
Heller, Kevin Jon. "‘One Hell of a Killing Machine’ Signature Strikes and International
Law." Journal of International Criminal Justice 11.1 (2013): 89-119.
Johnston, Patrick B., and Anoop K. Sarbahi. "The impact of US drone strikes on terrorism in
Pakistan." International Studies Quarterly 60.2 (2016): 203-219.
Johnston, Patrick B., and Anoop K. Sarbahi. "The impact of US drone strikes on terrorism in
Pakistan." International Studies Quarterly 60.2 (2016): 203-219.
Khan, Akbar Nasir. "The US’policy of targeted killings by drones in Pakistan." Washington
Post (Washington) (2010): 25.
Khan, Shahid N. "Qualitative research method: Grounded theory." International Journal of
Business and Management 9.11 (2014): 224-233.

51U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Lewis, Sarah. "Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches." Health promotion practice16.4 (2015): 473-475.
Mackey, Alison, and Susan M. Gass. Second language research: Methodology and design.
Routledge, 2015.
Murphy, Sean D. "The international legality of US military cross-border operations from
Afghanistan into Pakistan." International Law Studies (US Naval War College) 84 (2009).
Panneerselvam, R. "Research Methodology, PHI Learning Pvt." (2014).
Plaw, Avery, and Matthew S. Fricker. "Tracking the predators: Evaluating the US drone
campaign in Pakistan." International Studies Perspectives 13.4 (2012): 344-365.
Reynolds, David, et al., eds. Advances in school effectiveness research and practice. Elsevier,
2014.
Ronald Shaw, Ian Graham, and Majed Akhter. "The unbearable humanness of drone warfare
in FATA, Pakistan." Antipode 44.4 (2012): 1490-1509.
Shah, Sikander Ahmed. "War on terrorism: Self defense, operation enduring freedom, and the
legality of US drone attacks in Pakistan." Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 9 (2010): 77.
Shah, Sikander Ahmed. International law and drone strikes in Pakistan: the legal and socio-
political aspects. Routledge, 2014.
Shaw, Ian GR. "Predator empire: The geopolitics of US drone warfare." Geopolitics 18.3
(2013): 536-559.
Smith, Jonathan A., ed. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Sage,
2015.
Smith, Megan, and James Igoe Walsh. "Do drone strikes degrade Al Qaeda? Evidence from
propaganda output." Terrorism and Political Violence 25.2 (2013): 311-327.
Vaioleti, Timote M. "Talanoa research methodology: A developing position on Pacific
research." Waikato Journal of Education 12 (2006).

52U.S. DRONE ATTACKS INSIDE PAKISTAN’S TERRITORY
Williams, Brian Glyn. "The CIA's covert Predator drone war in Pakistan, 2004–2010: the
history of an assassination campaign." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism33.10 (2010): 871-892.
Websites
'Drone Strikes: Pakistan' (New America Organization, 2019)
<https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/americas-counterterrorism-wars/pakistan/> accessed
31 August 2019
Newspaper Articles
Harrison, Selig S. "The Pashtun time bomb." The New York Times 1 (2007).
Reid, Tim. "President Obama ‘orders Pakistan drone attacks’." The Times 23 (2009).