SDI 2010 Vers 1.0
Drones Aff
1AC
Observation 1: Inherency
The US relies on drone technology in Afghanistan
Chelala, 6/9 [Cesar Chelala, winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award for an article on human rights, “Drones: Backfiring on U.S. Strategy,” The Globalist, 6/ 09/10, DA: 6/22/10, http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8515.]
Predator drones are increasingly being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they track and kill suspected insurgents, sometimes with their own missiles. César Chelala argues that if the use of these dangerous weapons becomes more frequent, so will adverse impacts on the safety of innocent civilians and violations of international humanitarian law.
Drones are a dominant component of US military presence in Afghanistan
Chelala, 6/10 [Cesar Chelala, winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award for an article on human rights, CommonDreams.org, 6/10/10, date accessed: 6/22/10, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/10-5.]
In a scathing report released on May 29, the American military blamed the "inaccurate and unprofessional reporting" by a team of Predator drone operators that led to the strikes. This episode illustrates the serious risks involved in the use of drones, which many law experts consider violate rules of war. Predator drones are extensively used in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they track and kill suspected insurgents, sometimes with their own missiles. A report by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, makes a thorough assessment on the effect of drones, whose use has provoked significant controversy.
Advantage _____: Modeling
US use of drones in Afghanistan crushes international humanitarian law and eliminates international accountability for killing—Continued use will create devastating precedent that will inevitably be modeled
Alston, NYU law professor and the U.N.’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, ’10
[Philip Alston, NYU law professor and the U.N.’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings,Human Rights Council: Fourteenth session, Agenda item 3, “Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” United Nations General Assembly Report, A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, 5/28/10, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf]
1. A targeted killing is the intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force, by States or their agents acting under colour of law, or by an organized armed group in armed conflict, against a specific individual who is not in the physical custody of the perpetrator. In recent years, a few States have adopted policies, either openly or implicitly, of using targeted killings, including in the territories of other States. 2. Such policies have been justified both as a legitimate response to “terrorist” threats and as a necessary response to the challenges of “asymmetric warfare.” In the legitimate struggle against terrorism, too many criminal acts have been re-characterized so as to justify addressing them within the framework of the law of armed conflict. New technologies, and especially unarmed combat aerial vehicles or “drones”, have been added into this mix, by making it easier to kill targets, with fewer risks to the targeting State. 3. The result of this mix has been a highly problematic blurring and expansion of the boundaries of the applicable legal frameworks – human rights law, the laws of war, and the law applicable to the use of inter-state force. Even where the laws of war are clearly applicable, there has been a tendency to expand who may permissibly be targeted and under what conditions. Moreover, the States concerned have often failed to specify the legal justification for their policies, to disclose the safeguards in place to ensure that targeted killings are in fact legal and accurate, or to provide accountability mechanisms for violations. Most troublingly, they have refused to disclose who has been killed, for what reason, and with what collateral consequences. The result has been the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined licence to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum. 4. In terms of the legal framework, many of these practices violate straightforward applicable legal rules. To the extent that customary law is invoked to justify a particular interpretation of an international norm, the starting point must be the policies and practice of the vast majority of States and not those of the handful which have conveniently sought to create their own personalized normative frameworks. It should be added that many of the justifications for targeted killings offered by one or other of the relevant States in particular current contexts would in all likelihood not gain their endorsement if they were to be asserted by other States in the future.
We isolate two impact scenarios to modeling
The first scenario is International Humanitarian Law—Drones crush IHL
Humanitarian international law is the driving force behind the humanization of all international law
Zeng, ‘9 [ZENG Lingliang, Faculty of Law, University of Macau, Macau, China, Humanizing tendency of contemporary international law, Front. Law China 2009, 4(1): 1–30]
(1) The fast humanizing tendency of international law has been resulted from external and internal factors of international law. Among various external factors, war and science & technology are two primary elements. It is the war or armed conflict that destroys or seriously harms the human life and property, thus urging the makers of international law increasingly to take into consideration of the human values. It is the continuous discovery and creation of science and technology that brings constant wealth to this world on the one hand and growing challenges to the human living environment and sustainable development on the other hand, thus making enactors of international law turn to more and more concerns to the latter. Judging from the internal factors (or international law itself), the humanitarian law and the law of human rights are the two “engines” of humanization-oriented trend of international law. It is humanitarian law that makes the start of humanizing process of international law. It is the fast development of human rights law that symbolizes humanization turning to be the main stream of international law. It has proved since the recent half a century or so that it is the continuous self-perfection of humanitarian law and human rights law, their mutual interactions and their putting-out effects on other areas of international law that have been promoting the growing humanization of international law as a whole.
Humanization of international law represents the end of absolute state power—it is ushering a new era of global justice, environmental protections and human rights
Zeng, ‘9 [ZENG Lingliang, Faculty of Law, University of Macau, Macau, China, Humanizing tendency of contemporary international law, Front. Law China 2009, 4(1): 1–30]
Humanization of international law has greatly enriched the contents of international law. Firstly, humanization has directly produced a series of new branches of international law, among which international human rights law, international environmental law and international criminal law are the most persuasive examples. Secondly, humanization has promoted some classic sectors of international law being continuously updated and adapted themselves to new conceptions, principles, rules and mechanism, such as various new elements in the law of sea, space law, law of diplomatic protection, humanitarian law, law of extradition, etc. In addition, humanization has urged international community to seek for dynamic links and appropriate coordination among certain sectors or areas of international law, such as the interactions between security, development, human rights and rule of law, the balance between economic development and environmental protection, the conciliation between intellectual property rights and public health, the connection between trade liberalization and core labor standards, etc. As a result of these horizontal and vertical development of humanizing international law, while sectors, areas or matters that are solely subject to domestic jurisdictions of States have been greatly decreasing, international law has been extending its scopes not only into various internal sectors of States, but also into all aspects of human life. In a word, humanizing international law symbolizes the end of absolute sovereignty and popularity of relative sovereignty both in theory and practice.
Humanized international law—far from being a western construct—is a tool of liberation of all peoples—International law key to stop extinction from nuclear war, ethnic violence, and environmental destruction
Raskin, ‘99
[Marcus, Co-founder of the Institute for Policy Studies and Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown, “Re-framing international law for the 21st century: The International Law of Reconstruction,” 9 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 513, lexis]
Like law itself, international law has been a double-edged sword, organizing the power of status quo nations and forces as justification for naked power. Other times it seems that international law continues as an instrument for the violated and the wretched seeking moral, political and social recompense. Sometimes these forces are represented or present themselves directly in struggles that have no name. And sometimes they are recognized as a result of the profound shifts in consciousness which then guide law in new directions as, for example, in the discovery and application of human rights. Emphasis on human rights might transform the current dominant conflict/power/force paradigm of international relations to one of common cooperation where conflict is recognized but subsumed and transmuted. Other times, those precedents of reason and cooperation based on a pacific sentiment within humanity and international law are called upon and applied to new situations. The latter two notions mean the retiring of the Thucydides/Hobbes/Machiavelli (THM) framework 2 because it is not easily able to recognize anything but war and conflict as the fundament of civilization itself. The THM framework, as Francis Boyle has suggested, is one which retains dominance and has as its logical consequence the will to destroy and assert dominance. 3 It offers humanity nothing but a doomsday future in slow motion where, at best, practitioners of international law and international relations are consigned like Sisyphus either to forestall the inevitable or to engage in labors of questionable value. But the THM view represents the detritus from the past, which, in the light of present moral standards, is either suspect or rejected. Thus, take as an example George Kennan, one of the premier thinkers about American foreign policy, who promulgated the view that an elitist, virtually monarchial, system that was [*515] authoritarian in nature was better than a democracy. 4 Kennan called for the "extensive restriction of suffrage in national affairs." 5 Those denied the vote would be women, considered frivolous by Kennan, blacks, considered wards of the state without need of the franchise, and immigrants, who were exercising more political power than "real" Americans. 6 The treatment of minorities as inferior and not part of civilization was accepted as "good and necessary" law through the Second World War. 7 Thus, whole groups, which at the beginning of the century were classified as beyond the ambit of concern and without rights, by the end of the century could no longer be denied even in international politics and law. 8However, the twentieth century has shown that such notions of power, racism and dominance need not endure in light of changed consciousness and international law once the project of human rights and inclusivity is clearly articulated as emancipation and reconstruction. This characterization of a reconstructed international law, linked to international and transnational relations, fits within the underlying patterns of modern history that have emerged since the French revolution. In fact, within American life, profound cultural changes have led to a transformation of understanding regarding world politics and historical markers. Today, there is a far greater awareness in the populace as a whole, such that ideas reflected by Kennan sixty years ago have been reduced to the marginal and dark recesses of the minds of segregationists and Colonel Blimps. 9 Demystification, which occurred through social movements finding their own voices and through new studies in tune with these movements, resulted in breaking the colonizing knowledge and power nexus. Not surprisingly, icons suffered. Christopher Columbus, once viewed uncritically (with the exception of Adam Smith) 10 and nearly universally as a symbol of [*516] exploration and liberation, today can be seen as a harbinger of exploitation and genocide. School children in the West can recount the role of Columbus and the startling and awful role of the settlers in the destruction of native cultures. This destruction was no less furthered by the sanctimonious and sweet-talking missionaries whose crosses became swords stuck in the hearts of the indigenous. Today, school children learn that when a continent had to be cleared and Nature conquered, it was reprehensible for those such as Andrew Jackson, and Generals Sherman and Sheridan to relish in their tasks of the genocide of Indians. More proof of humane progress in this century can be seen among the colonized in the Congo, China or Brazil, indigenous people and tribes once captured to dig, mine and build for the West, who have since presented their own cases and found their own voices and representation. Yet, not much has changed in terms of the distribution of political power, the assumptions held by the powerful, and the institutional structures that reinforce very traditional and unpleasant views of the role that states have in the world--a world which is characterized by paranoia, fear and an inability to render solutions to world problems. However, the givens of international law changed with the idea that law should be undergirded by notions of humane progress. Law, humaneness and justice came to be conflated and, by the end of the century, democracy (because it meant inclusivity and choice) was also being invoked as a political rallying cry to promote justice, equality and dignity. Once whole groups, whether women, minorities or the indigenous, are recognized as having human rights as well as individual and group dignity, they are included in a social compact, which the law codifies in actions, rituals and symbols for political equality. In their continuing struggles, the formerly denied groups then use the law as their wedge for human rights. In this dialectical but complementary process, international law is no longer the passive justifier of the status quo and impenetrable state power. It becomes an instrument for continuing liberation among elites and popular movements alike. 11 Social and political developments such as these bear witness to the liberal thrust and consciousness that showed itself in the twentieth century.