CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 11 (2020) questions “ will Donald trump international law ”, or “whether the Trump Administration’s many initiatives will permanently change the nature of America’s relationship with international law and its institutions?” The Trump approach to international law according Koh “does not value concerted efforts to translate existing legal rules, but rather claims that there are no rules that bind our conduct” and “rest almost entirely on hard power.” The Trump policy in a view of Koh is “ grounded on claimed national rights, not the universal rights ” on which the U.S. was founded. Trump’s “America First” strategy, in Koh’s words “grimly views” the U.S. interaction with the world as zero-sum, an approach that inevitably promotes reciprocal self-centeredness on the part of other powerful nations”. 55 It means that Trump’s administration continues the targeting policy of his predecessors without accent on the role of international law. 6.3 Concerns of targeted killings practices Many U.S. civil rights and academic organizations expressed concerns regarding U.S. drone strikes and targeting killings. On 11 April 2013, nine American organizations sent a joint letter to president B. Obama asking the administration publicly to disclose key targeted killings standards and criteria, ensure that the U.S. lethal force operations abroad comply with international law and ensure effective investigations, tracking, and response to civilians harms. They urged the administration to release to the public all Department of Justice, CIA, and Department of Defense memoranda reflecting the interpretation of operative law and policy concerning the “ lethal targeting of any person ”. The letter asked the administration to disclose the legal criteria for the identification of targets including placement on so-called “kill lists” and subsequent targeting and criteria for so-called “personality strikes”, “signature strikes”, and “terrorist attack disruption strikes” (TADS). 56 A study from Stanford and NYU Schools of Law argued that the U.S. targeted killings and drone strike practices “ undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. ” This study denied the U.S. “narrative” about the use of drones in Pakistan as “surgically precise and effective tool” which makes the U.S. safer and called it “false” 57 On the contrary, the study confirmed that U.S. drone strikes, including the CIA drones , killed and injured many civilians. Drone strikes have even targeted funerals, mosques, and spaces where families have gathered. Therefore, this academic analysis called on “U.S. policy makers” to rethink current targeted killing practices in Pakistan. Repeated public statements by Pakistani officials considered the U.S. strikes as illegal , counterproductive, and violating Pakistan’s sovereignty . 58 This U.S. position ignored the law on state sovereignty. O’Connell with regard to U.S. targeted killings in Pakistan specified that “there has been no armed conflict ” and therefore “even express consent by Pakistan would not justify their use”. 59 The study of the RAND Corporation characterized U.S. policies by 55 KOH, H. H., Trump Administration and International Law , Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, Series 5213, 56 Washburn Law Journal 2017, pp. 413-4, 420, 467. 56 Joint letter to President Obama on U.S. Drone Strikes and Targeted Killings , available at: https://www.hrw. org/news/2013/12/05/joint-letter-president-obama-drone-strikes-and-targeted-killings. Letter was signed by American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Center for Human Rights & Global Justice, NYU, School of Law, Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School, Human Rights Watch, Open Society Foundation. 57 Supra note 6, pp. V, VIII, for the U.S. position see BRENNAN, supra note 52.

58 Supra note 4, pp. VIII, pp. 92-3, 103. 59 O’CONNELL, M. E., supra note 4.

308