We very much appreciate the fact that Neta Crawford, Janina Dill, and David Whetham have taken our proposal for a Drone Accountability Regime (DAR) seriously and have offered various critiques and suggestions in their responses to it. In the lead article to this symposium we took pains to emphasize that the details of our proposal are clearly contestable; that there is no guarantee of political feasibility; and, indeed, that it would be desirable to establish what we called an “experimentalist regime” to take into account the need to adapt to circumstances that are not now foreseeable. We are therefore pleased to see that our article initiated a lively discussion of the characteristics of a Drone Accountability Regime, and of the international political and legal context within which its provisions should be framed.
To read or purchase the full article, click here.
More in this issue
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Essay
Accountability for Targeted Drone Strikes Against Terrorists?
The problem of terrorism can and probably ought to be approached from both war and law enforcement paradigms, not merely the former one, as Buchanan ...
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Essay
The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War
How does the proposed drone accountability regime relate to existing international treaty and customary law governing the use of force, including the use of lethal ...
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Essay
Ebola, Liberia, and the "Cult of Bankable Projects"
SHEFA SIEGEL Instead of addressing core issues of state failure, development aid continues pushing narrowly focused agendas that have little meaning in places where institutions ...