A common European position on armed drones? Charting EU member states’ views on questions of counterterrorism uses of force

Abstract

This article gauges the extent to which European Union (EU) governments share the United States’ position on armed drones and targeted killing. In doing so, it aims to assist in distilling a common EU position on the use of armed drones and a legal framework for counterterrorism-related uses of force. The article includes a summary of the results of a questionnaire sent to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defence, Justice and intelligence services of all 28 EU member states. The authors also parsed other relevant sources that could evince governments’ official positions (such as public statements, policy documents, etc.). Notwithstanding that an EU Common Position may be difficult and politically sensitive to achieve, the authors are convinced it is worthwhile to strive towards as much of a consensus within the EU as possible. A solid EU position based on the rule of law is necessary as a counterweight against the current US position, which still raises serious questions under international law. The EU will be stronger in its criticism of the USA if it speaks with a unified voice.

Keywords:

• counterterrorism
• drones
• European Union
• international law
• targeted killing
• United States

Notes on contributors

Jessica Dorsey is researcher at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in the areas of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law and a Research Fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague.

Dr Christophe Paulussen is a senior researcher at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in the areas of international humanitarian law/international criminal law and a Research Fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague.

Notes

1. “ [T]he elasticity of these terms [regarding imminence] raises serious questions, not least about the self-judging aspect of ‘imminence’, but also raises the curious question as to how something can be simultaneously imminent and continuing. Prior statements … suggest that the United States has embraced an ‘elongated’ concept of imminence that has attracted criticism for its inconsistency with the international law on anticipatory self-defence.”