Changes in the Law of Self-Defence? Drones, Imminence, and International Norm Dynamics This article assesses the evolution of the international law of the use of force, focusing on how the emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), influenced international norms regulating the right to self-defense. Drawing on constructivist International Relations research, we develop a socio-legal framework that emphasizes changes in the interpretation of the meaning of imminence, and investigate how these changes, counterterrorism, and the introduction of UAVs have contributed to the adoption of more relaxed standards for the use of force in self-defence. We argue that the Obama Administration engaged in a systematic effort to redefine imminence and that a significant numbers of states, including key powers such as China, India and the UK, have largely followed this model. This, we suggest, underlines both the ability of dominant states to shape the interpretation of international norms and the influence of strategic and technological developments on the meaning and interpretation of international law.
Starting in 2010, the Obama administration engaged in an effort to justify drone strikes relying on the concept of ‘imminence’. The aim of this article is to understand the reasons behind such insistence and to assess the administration’s efforts at conceptual change. Building on Skinner’s and Bentley’s work, the article argues that the administration has followed an ‘innovating ideologist’ strategy. The analysis shows how waves of criticisms exposed the administration to a key contradiction between its rhetoric of change that emphasised international law and the need for aggressive counterterrorism. Reacting to this criticism, the administration has relied on imminence due to its connection with legitimate uses of force, while working to change the criteria for the concept, causing a shift away from imminent as ‘immediate.’ Reassessing Skinner’s place in IR, the article identifies conceptual change as a lens to assess foreign policy rhetoric and practice. The analysis emphasises the connection between actors’ intentions, beliefs, and practices. It highlights the importance of criticism in engendering contradictions, exploring why only some criticisms are confronted. Finally, the article develops an original typology of the limits confronted by the innovating ideologist and methods to assess whether the actor has respected them.
The US government's increasing reliance on targeted killings has revived debates on the role of assassination in US foreign policy. The scholarship tends to ignore the significance of the role of the Ford Administration's ban on assassination in setting the stage for future debates. Based largely on archival material and elite interviews, this article provides the first indepth account of the Ford Administration's approach to assassination and the decision-making processes that led to the inclusion of a ban on assassination in Executive Order 11905. The article argues that discussions within the Ford Administration, the language adopted in presenting the Order, and the ban itself actually did not close assassination off completely as an option but left it in a status of 'strategic ambiguity' that could be exploited by future presidents. The article will also challenge two resilient myths: first, the apparently 'imperilled' nature of the Ford Presidency and second CIA Director William Colby's alleged supine cooperation with Congress. The article shows that, from the start, the administration and the CIA made a concerted and successful effort to obstruct intelligence inquiries, to restore the powers and reputation of the CIA, and to fend off Congressional assaults on the presidency.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.