Does the use of predator drones to carry out targeted killings in a foreign state's territory in response to armed attacks by non-state actors violate international law? ; Ar nepilotuojamų lėktuvų naudojimas užsienio šalių teritorijoje, kaip atsakas į nevalstybinių subjektų ginkluotas atakas, prieštarauja tarptautinei teisei?

Abstract

In developing the idea of the just war Hugo Grotius, develops certain natural rights, of which the most important is that it be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill. Hugo Grotius formulation of self-defense understandable as a broad right of preemption which justifies the use of force against states that are preparing to kill. More than a century later, Emmerich de Vattel expands Grotius concept of self-defense allowing preemptive force to prevent evil. However, the Grotius and de Vattel's statements and arguments were made before Westphalia peace (1648) when there was no sovereignty concept. Nevertheless, in a recent past there are numerous historical examples were anticipatory self-defense has been used and it's usage recognized by international community. The lack of treaties and protocols governing the use of unmanned robots on the battlefield presents debates among international legal scholars. Therefore, it is necessary to assess whether the use of force in response against attacks promulgated by non-state actors is compatible with the principles of Ius ad bellum, such as proportionality, necessity sovereignty and liability of the entity. In recent years, the United Nations Security Council characterized international terrorism in general as one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. However, charter's language suggests that it only regulates the use of force between states therefore an armed response to a terrorist attack will almost never meet parameters for the lawful exercise of self-defense. Instead terrorist attacks are generally treated as criminal acts because they have all the hallmarks of crimes. The drone attacks involve significant firepower—this is not the force of the police, but of the military. [.]