The risks of remaining silent: international law formation and the EU silence on drone killings

Abstract

Despite fierce public critique, governments of EU member states have not objected to the ongoing practice of armed drone attacks. Whatever the reasons for this silence may be, in international law such non-reaction is not a mere absence. The silence of governments functions in particular ways and has become part of the current interpretative struggle about changing international principles regarding the right to self-defence and “targeted killing”. While some experts count this silence as tacit consent to “targeted killing” practices others dispute its legal value. This article builds on the work of linguistics to explore the functioning of silence in the diplomatic language games. The dominant reading of government silence is acquiescence in international law. Proposing alternative readings of government silence, this article shows how any interpretation of silence is necessarily a political act which channels the debate over whether and how international law is changing. I reflect silence not against but through its inherent ambiguity, thus revealing some obvious and some less obvious dangers of the EU policy of silence.

Keywords:

• drone
• protest
• silence
• acquiescence
• customary international law

Notes on contributor

Elisabeth Schweiger is doctoral researcher at the University of Edinburgh. Her work focuses on the political aspects of Customary International Law formation and the role of silence in diplomatic relations and international law.

Notes

1. With EU silence I refer to the public silence of governments of EU member states and their representatives in the EU Council.