While the first predator drone attacks by the by the CIA of the United States (US) occurred in 2004, the first official report of the attacks was submitted to the UNHRC only in 2009.
Both the 2009 report and the 2010 report by investigator Philip Alston questioning the legality and morality of the predator drone attacks, inter alia, object to use of drones in Pakistan as being outside defined war zone and to CIA handling said attacks instead of the military. The attacks have been criticized as lacking accountability to international norms, breaching sovereign immunity and lacking proportionality. The report also envisages the consequences of this interpretation of ‘ self-defense’ applying universally.
The UNHRC rejects the self-defense arguments of Bush and Obama administrations but ultimately refuses to finalize the legality of the attacks. The need for a new legal paradigm to confront terror groups does not justify ad-hoc killing campaigns where the President of one nation shall be allowed to brand his victims in a secret court that is not accountable to the rest of the world. While attention from the UNHRC has lead to the CIA employing smaller, more accurate missiles in their drone attacks to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties by reducing the physical target area, the continuing trespass by predator drones is cause for umbrage. The UNHRC previously widely criticized of prejudice against Israel has lent itself once again to criticism of the opposite kind – that of shielding and yielding to a developed nation.
