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
Targeted Killing: Accountability and Oversight via a Drone Accountability Regime
Using a drone as a component of a military operation does not automatically make that action a “targeted killing.” Much of the public concern about ...
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Feature
Toward a Drone Accountability Regime
The key principle of a Drone Accountability Regime should be transparency, and its central agent should be an Ombudsperson with broad authority to investigate situations ...
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Review
Power in Concert: The Nineteenth-Century Origins of Global Governance by Jennifer Mitzen
REVIEW BY ANDREAS OSIANDER Mitzen contends that when states publicly commit to joint action in pursuit of a common goal, this fact will exert an ...