ICJ SMUN 2013 Evidence Packet for the USA

A. US Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism The report reveals that even though Pakistan conducted raid operations, the country lacked the capability to ensure that these areas remain terrorist-free. Her Anti-Terrorism Court is also incapable of prosecuting suspected terrorists, further illustrating the country inability to handle the conflict. Office of the Coordinator For Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State (2011) Country reports on Terrorism 2010. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170258.htm B. The Year of the Drone: An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010 This study analyses the U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan and examines that the civilian casualty rate is not as high as the media has exaggerated. Hence the actions of the US are within the Principle of Proportionality and hence, the use of drones is in accordance to Article 35 of the Geneva Convention. P. Bergen, K. Tiedemann (2010) The Year of the Drone: An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010. Retrieved from http://www.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/bergentiedemann2.pdf C. MQ-9 REAPER Factsheet To gain a technical understanding of the drones and how they are designed to minimize superfluous and unnecessary suffering. U.S. Air Force (2013) MQ-9 REAPER. Retrieved from: http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6405 D. Objection 2: UAV Limitations Lead to jus in bello Violations of Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles This section of the paper presents how drone technology actually increases a pilots ability to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant. Hence injury and harm inflicted is not more than what is unavoidable and hence is neither superfluous or unnecessary.

Bradley Jay Strawser (2010): Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles, Journal of Military Ethics, 9:4, 342-368

E. The Moral Case for Drones This news article cites a study that showed how the civilian casualty rate of drones are considerably less than conventional military options and another study showing that there has been a notable drop
in the civilian proportion of drone casualties. Essentially, it shows how the US wants to minimize the damage, which is in the spirit of Article 35.

S. Shane (July 14, 2012) The Moral Case For Drone. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-case-for-drones.html?_r=0 F. Unmanned, Unprecedented and Unresolved: The Status of American Drone Strikes in Pakistan Under International Law This scholarly article was written by Andrew C. Orr who was the Editor in Chief of the Cornell International Law Journal. He argues that the drone strikes do not violate Pakistani Sovereignty and that international treaties such as the Geneva Convention or the ICCPR do not forbid the drone strikes. Andrew C. Orr (2011). Unmanned, Unprecedented and Unresolved: The Status of American Drone Strikes in Pakistan Under International Law. Cornell International Law Journal, Vol 44, pg730 - pg 752. Retrieved from http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/upload/Orrfinal.pdf G. US Embassy Cables This shows how the Pakistani government supports use of drones and has given the US explicit permission to continue on with the campaign, supporting our claim that USA has not infringed upon the sovereignty of Pakistan and that injury inflicted was necessary as it was to address a security concern. US Embassy Cables (23/8, 2008) IMMUNITY FOR MUSHARRAF LIKELY AFTER ZARDARI'S ELECTION AS PRESIDENT. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassycables-documents/167125