U.S. military officials have confirmed media reports that Iranian military forces successfully shot down a U.S. drone in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. What does the law say about the situation and possible U.S. responses?
Ashley Deeks is a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School. She joined the Virginia faculty in 2012 after two years as an academic fellow at Columbia Law School. She served for ten years in the Legal Adviser's Office at the State Department, most recently as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Political-Military Affairs. In 2007-08 she held an International Affairs Fellowship from the Council on Foreign Relations. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School, she clerked for Judge Edward Becker on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Views might deviate along two axes: the debate about whether all uses of force constitute armed attacks and the debate about what requirements must be met before a state acts in collective self-defense of another state.
In the past two years, a number of companies have invoked international law justifications to decline to make their products available to states that, in their view, will use those products to violate international law.
The American Journal of International Law recently posted a symposium on unilateral targeted sanctions.
There are a limited number of cases in which Congress has mandated that the president affirmatively engage in military activities in the face of presidential opposition to doing so.
A new project addresses how artificial intelligence might change how states decide to use force against one another.
There is value in putting down a marker that using the technology this way is not acceptable.