The United States’ War on Terror in Pakistan: The Change in the

Conduct of War and Implications for International Norms

Nathaniel P. Candelaria

University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, the Philippines

Keywords: War on Terror, Drone Technology, Security, Norms

Abstract: Based on the current trends in technology, the US is now capable of using drones with weapons to attack its

enemies since 2001, and it has progressed more under the Obama Administration. This paper, then, will

look into how drones changed the conduct of war, and how the use of drones affect international norms by

probing into the case of the US’ War on Terror in Pakistan. To explain how this particular phenomenon has

changed the conduct of war, a case study research design will be utilized. The paper will be using secondary

data provided by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on the number of drone operations during 2004 –

2015, and existing literature on drone warfare. As far as drones use are concerned, the paper was able to

find out that there are positive and negative changes this particular technology has brought in the current

times. The use of drones in the War on Terror has changed how military operations, and by extension

warfare, are conducted. Drone warfare differs from the earlier types as combatants need not to be physically

present within the area of conflict as they are operated remotely. However, there is a caveat as they do not

discriminate combatants from civilians. In the case of the US War on Terror in Pakistan, there were reported

many civilian casualties. Moreover, by focusing on Pakistan’s case, scholars have argued that the use of

drones in Pakistan has implications for international norms such as international law, sovereignty, and

human rights.

1 INTRODUCTION

The United States (US) first used its drone

technology capabilities as a tool for surveillance

during the Vietnam War (Enemark, 2011; Shaw

2016). It later became a tool for weaponry in 2001 in

Afghanistan (Sifton, 2012), and was also used in

Pakistan starting in 2004. (Callam, 2010; Shaw,

2013).

Given the said premises, this paper looks into

how drone technology altered the conduct of

warfare, by conducting a case study of the US’s war

on terror in Pakistan. Specifically, this paper will

look into three particular problems. The first is how

technology improved US’s capabilities in its conduct

of warfare and its implications for the international

norms. The second is how drone technology affect

the population of Pakistan. And the third is how

drone technology challenges international norms

with regard to its use in the US’ War on Terror.

This paper has three objectives. First, by probing

into the case of Pakistan, this paper seeks to help

understand the concerns and the issues of the US’s

war on terror. Second, this paper also seeks to find

out how the use of drone technology affects the

international norms in the international system.

Lastly, this paper also seeks to raise awareness and

to add knowledge on how the US’s utilization of

drone technology affected Pakistan’s society.

This study acknowledges that as the most

powerful military in the world, the US can employ

this kind of warfare almost anywhere in the world.

Drone technology was already used in other states

such as Iraq and Afghanistan. However, studying the

US’s conduct on the war on terror is still broad. To

limit its scope, this paper will specifically focus on

the context, effects of the improvement of

technology in warfare on both the US and Pakistan,

and concerns arising regarding the usage of drone

technology in Pakistan. Given the scope of the

study, this paper will use a case study design, and

qualitative content analysis as the paper’s method of

data analysis (Flick, 2009). The materials used in

analyzing the role of drones in altering the conduct

of warfare will be analyzed qualitatively. More of

this, however, will be discussed in the methodology

section of the paper. By looking into the case study

of the US’s war on terror in Pakistan, the paper

Candelaria, N.

The United States’ War on Terror in Pakistan: The Change in the Conduct of War and Implications for International Norms.

DOI: 10.5220/0010276500002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 317-323

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

317

hopes that it will be able to examine these concerns:

1) how the technological advancement improved the

US’s capability of conducting warfare; 3) how

Pakistan’s population is affected by the US’s

utilization of drone technology in Pakistan, and 4)

how this particular example helped challenge the

norms due to the change in the conduct of war.

2 DRONES AND USE IN

WARFARE

Drones, specifically classified as unmanned

autonomic vehicles (UAVs), have altered the

conduct of warfare by removing combatants from

the battlefield, and inflict damage to the enemy

(Manijikan, 2014). As mentioned in the paper

earlier, drones require coordinates in order to make

it work. Like in any computer system, it was argued

that drones require data in order for it to work

(Clarke, 2014).

Particularly for the US, drones use as weapons

have been observed since 2004 in Pakistan (Bureau

of Investigative Journalism, 2016). In this section of

the paper, it will explore how drones are being used

by military forces, and what are the dangers that it

poses, in connection with its use.

With regard to state security, drones in general

can serve as deterrent for states not to use violence

as a state policy, in fear of retaliation against states

which can use the same kind of technology (Straub,

2016). Aside from its practical uses for states, Straub

(2016) also pointed out that non-state actors can also

benefit from drones. For the one using drone

technology, it makes combatants safe as it does not

require the physical presence of soldiers in the

combat zone (Warrior, 2015). However, it should be

pointed out also that while it makes its users safe, it

inflicts more damage to the recipient as drones do

not discriminate between combatants and civilians

(Henriksen and Ringsmose, 2015).

Drones were first used by the US forces during

the Vietnam War as tools for surveillance against

North Vietnam forces, but the inspiration for drones

came from the ideas of bomber planes used during

the Second World War (Enemark, 2011). Like in

any piece of technology, Enemark (2011) pointed

out that the US was able to improve on it, by making

it lethal. The lethal power of drones were first used

by the US on its war on terror in Afghanistan in

2001 (Sifton, 2012; Shaw, 2013), and was used in

Pakistan starting 2004 by targeting Pakistan’s

Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATAs).

(Callam 2010; Shaw, 2013) However, the degree of

drones use increased under the Obama

Administration (Shaw, 2013).

Based on what was discussed, there are many

functions that drones were known for: particularly

for observation purposes. Operating drones to

observe will ensure the safety of those operating in

hostile areas. Another is the role of drones that is

used as a weapon. Because of its efficacy, strong

military powers are using its advantage in order to

protect their own military assets.

3 THE US DRONE OPERATIONS

IN PAKISTAN: CONTEXT AND

THE SITUATION ON THE

GROUND

Drone use in Pakistan has been one of the strategies

implemented by the US as one of its efforts in

combatting terrorists outside its territory after the

onset of the September 11, 2001 attack by the Al

Qaeda (Aslam, 2012). However, it was in 2004

when the first airstrike by drones was conducted by

the US in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas

(FATAs) in Pakistan (Callam, 2010; Shaw, 2013).

Even after the term of the Bush Administration, the

war on terror in Pakistan continued under the Obama

Administration (Aslam, 2012). While the US claims

success in its war on terror in Pakistan as a measure

of curbing up threats in its internal security,

however, critics argue that the US war on terror in

Pakistan is a failure (Shaw, 2013). Given the said

dilemma, this paper will probe further how drones

were used by the US on its war on terror in Pakistan,

by using the data provided by the Bureau of

Investigative Journalism from 2004-2015.

This paper is going to use the value provided by

the BIJ as there is no reliable data on its

measurement (M. Ahmad, 2014b), and usual

government data do not accurately account for these

concerns. Given the limitations on available data, the

author, in this regard, is inclined to use data not

provided by the government as government data

tends to be skewed in their favor generally.

Moreover, using these data will give the paper an

insight as to how the technology was used through

time. Moreover, the data will also show how the US

became more reliant with the use of drones through

a particular time period. The full breakdown of the

US’s utilization of drones, and the number of deaths

are provided below:

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

318

Table 1. Drones use in Pakistan by the US

Year

CIA

Drone

Strikes

Minimum

people

killed

Maximum

people

killed

Minimum

civilians

killed

Maximum

civilians

killed

Minimum

children

killed

Maximum

children

killed

Minimum

people

injured

Maximum

people

injured

2004 1 6 8 2 2 2 2 1 1

2005 3 16 16 5 11 4 5 1 1

2006 2 94 105 90 100 73 76 3 3

2007 5 36 56 11 46 1 1 20 37

2008 38 252 401 59 173 26 45 146 228

2009 54 471 753 100 210 36 39 266 404

2010 128 755 1,108 89 197 23 23 351 428

2011 75 362 666 52 152 6 11 158 236

2012 50 212 410 13 63 1 2 100 212

2013 27 109 195 0 4 0 1 43 89

2014 25 115 186 0 2 0 2 44 67

2015 13 60 85 2 5 0 0 25 32

TOTAL 421 2,488 3,989 423 965 172 207 1,158 1,738

Source: Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2016

According to the data provided by the Bureau of

Investigative Journalism, the US conducted during

2004-2015 a total of 421 airstrikes in Pakistan

(Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2016). Out of

these drone operations carried out by the US, it was

estimated that at least 2,488 people (and a maximum

number of 3,989 people) were killed by the US’s use

of drones in its war on terror in Pakistan (Bureau of

Investigative Journalism, 2016). Out of these people,

it was found out that at least 423 people (and up to

925 people) that were killed by these drones

operations were civilians, and from the total number

of deaths, at least 172 children (with a maximum

number of 207 children) were killed (Bureau of

Investigative Journalism, 2016).

The ratio of the number of civilian deaths vis-à-

vis the combatants is around 17%-23%, and for the

children, 5.20% - 6.91%. The damage that was

caused by the use of drones is not limited to the

number of deaths. For those who were able to

survive the ordeal, at least 1158 people are injured,

with a maximum value of 1738 people (Bureau of

Investigative Journalism, 2016).

While there are no deaths noted from the side of

the US as drones are controlled remotely, however,

the extent of the damage caused by drones is

reflected on the side of Pakistan. Based from the

abovementioned data, it can be argued that for every

four targets of drones, at least one of them are

civilians. The abovementioned data likewise showed

that that for every sixteen targets, one of the victims

are children. To sum it up, while drone technology

gives advantage to those who use it, however, they

should also think about the repercussions as they

were also killing those who were not supposed to be

killed.

The United States’ War on Terror in Pakistan: The Change in the Conduct of War and Implications for International Norms

319

4 THE USE OF DRONES IN

PAKISTAN AND ITS

IMPLICATIONS FOR

EXISTING NORMS

Notwithstanding the tactical advantages drones have

to offer to its users, there are issues that need to be

discussed, particularly in the context of Pakistan. For

instance, the literature has out that its use has

implications for the legal system and on sovereignty.

Furthermore, the use of drones for military

operations have implications for the norms that have

been established by the international community,

particularly on human rights, security. This section

of the paper will therefore highlight how drones

affect the promotion of international norms.Given

that drones as a tool of war is not yet discussed

extensively by international bodies, some scholars

argue that there are legal implications with regard to

its use. M. Ahmad (2014a) argued that the drones

use on the US’s war on terror in Pakistan challenged

international laws and norms, since the US uses

drones within Pakistan under the guise of addressing

its internal security issues. He also pointed out that

this posed a problem as the US attack on Pakistan

challenged the non-interference norm in

International Relations.

Boyle (2015), in his article, discussed that some

policymakers argue that drones are far less

dangerous than nuclear technology. Despite the

differences of damages both technologies can do, he

pointed out that norms and international rules were

challenged because of drones’ proliferation. Issues

such as legal authority, nature of targets,

deployment, state accountability, and state

sovereignty must be resolved by parties involved

before drones can be used (Boyle, 2015). In

connection with the discussion earlier, the use of

drones outside a particular state’s borders have

impact on a state’s sovereignty. For instance,

Henriksen and Ringsmose (2015) have pointed out

that while drones can be used for attack and

surveillance purposes, however, the use of drones

undermine one state’s sovereignty, particularly with

the idea of control within one’s territory. As an

example, Henriksen and Ringsmose (2015) have

cited the example of the United States where it

operates in the context of war on terror as a local

issue; but they were able to point out that in effect,

the US’ use of drones outside its border affects the

sovereignty of others as operations were conducted

on other states’ borders.

Because of the use of drones by the US in

Pakistan, some scholars have also argued that the

use of drones of the US in Pakistan’s territory has

undermined a state’s sovereignty (I. Ahmad, 2010;

Rafique and Anwar, 2014). Specifically, I. Ahmad

(2010) argued out that drones are indiscriminate

when it comes to its targets, which makes drones

operations by the US in Pakistan as negative by

Pakistan’s citizens. By implication, the collusion

made both by US and Pakistan is seen as a negative

action as Pakistan is seen by its citizens as a state

allowing other states to cause damage within its

territory (I. Ahmad, 2010).

Other scholars such as Aas (2012) argued out

that security issues are becoming more global and

not merely confined within the borders of states as it

was before, such as the war on terror and the war on

drugs. He argued for the recalibration of existing

ideas as issues of transnational crimes are not

limited by the confines set by conventions. Given

that states are fighting against these issues, he

further argued that because of the changing contexts

of crimes, the idea of sovereignty, in the current

times, is disaggregating. Another issue that must be

discussed as far as drones use in warfare is

concerned is the issue on human rights. Lee (2015)

argued that human rights are inherent and should be

recognized. By looking into drone warfare, he used

three points in order to argue that drones negatively

affect people’s human rights. The first point he made

looked into the improbability of states to justify the

war on terror as a just action. The second point

argued that even if the war on terror is legitimate, its

conduct, for him, is wrong as drones use does not

discriminate between combatants and civilians, a

point shared by Wilcox and Enemark. Lastly, the

relatively risk-free use provided to states can remove

the constraints on states on drones use (Lee, 2015).

In this regard, he pointed out that the lack of

constraints is can be used as an impetus for further

conflict if not regulated.

Despite the improvements on drone technology,

specifically by the US, Enemark (2011) pointed out

that concerns on drones use are arising. Citing the

case of the US’s drone program, he questioned

whether drones use fall into the categories of a just

war – in terms of benefits, discrimination, and

proportion (Enemark, 2011). Even if drones provide

advantage to its users, it was noted that the

technology left many people dead, and drones do not

discriminate between combatants and civilians

(Enemark, 2011), thus making the violence caused

by drone technology one sided (Wilcox, 2015). In

connection to that idea, Wilcox (2015) argued that

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

320

drone technology made violence one-sided as the

operators are safe within the confines of their control

rooms, while those who were targeted are unable to

retaliate. Due to this impact of drones on people’s

lives, it was pointed out that people usually associate

drones with fear as they made the whole population

vulnerable (Wilcox 2015). In order to avoid the

excesses of drone technology in warfare,

transparency and accountability are important with

drones use (Enemark, 2011). Using ‘biopolitics’ as a

conceptual lens in looking into the issue of drones in

warfare, it was argued that the US use of drones do

not make both US and Pakistan safe (Shaw, 2013;

Shaw, 2016). Further to that point, it was also raised

that due to the indiscriminate nature of drones as

weapons in warfare, people are worried about their

security, even if the US claims success over the war

on terror by using drones in its security architecture

(Shaw, 2013; Shaw, 2016). Thus, in this regard,

Shaw (2013; 2016) has pointed out that people are

ambivalent as far as drone technology on warfare is

concerned.

Aside from the damage to non-combatants, it

was discussed that even if drones improve the US

capabilities in conducting warfare, they negatively

affect the morale of its air force (Warrior, 2015).

Warrior (2015) discussed further that operation of

drones contribute to the lowering morale of the US

Air Force as they suffer psychologically because the

operators can still see reality even if they are not

physically present in the site of combat. Aside from

seeing the actual condition of drones use from their

control room, Warrior (2015) also pointed out the

use of drones also demoralized the members of the

air force as they were trained in using combat

weapons and machinery, and are now sidelined

because of the use of this particular kind of

technology. Like what Enemark argued earlier, she

also echoes out that the officers should also be

transparent and accountable for drones use in

warfare.

To point out this section’s discussion, there are at

least four areas that are being challenged by the

development and use of drones for warfare:

international law, sovereignty, human rights, and

individual security. In this regard, the use of drones

as a military tool, while affecting the conduct of war,

also has an impact on the existing norms.

5 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

As far as drone use is concerned, the literature was

able to establish that drone technology enhanced the

US’s capability to conduct warfare. The use of

drones lessen the risk of putting soldiers in the

battlefield as drones are remotely operated on in a

control room (Warrior, 2015). It has been recognized

also that the use of drones in the battlefield is more

efficient than conventional weapons in warfare

(Aslam, 2012; Henriksen and Ringsmose, 2015), and

can target enemies usually deemed unreachable by

state authorities (Williams, 2010). Aside from its

practical uses on the battlefield, it was also argued

that aside from technological advancement, drones

can also serve as possible deterrents for other states

not to attack (Straub, 2016).

However, using drones are not free from issues

and concerns. From a personal standpoint, Warrior

(2015) discussed that drone usage negatively affects

its users psychologically. This is due to the fact that

while it was operated like a remote-control vehicle,

its users can still see what is happening despite not

being physically there. She also mentioned that its

utilization also negatively affects the morale of US

air force as they were not forced to use conventional

weapons such as airplanes, to which they were

trained in its use (Warrior, 2015).

Aside from negatively affecting its users, drones

also negatively affect the people being targeted.

Drones, while able to kill its targets, were also able

to kill the civilian population as well as they do not

discriminate targets (I. Ahmad, 2010). Drone use

also undermines one state’s sovereignty as it

weakens a state’s capacity to protect its own

population from external attacks (M. Ahmad,

2014b). And in the case of Pakistan, it was clearly

reported by the BIJ that many of its citizens have

perished under the US war on terror within its

territories. It was found out that in the number of

deaths due to the US drones, 17%-23% of the total

number are civilians (Bureau of Investigative

Journalism, 2016). Within the number of deaths of

civilians, 5.20% - 6.91% of them are children

(Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2016).

Regardless of the outcome of its use in military

operations, drone warfare has already challenged

established norms and conventions on warfare. For

instance, the norms on the idea of a just war is

challenged, as discussed earlier by Enemark (2011).

In connection with the changing dynamics in terms

of military warfare, it has also brought concerns with

other norms aside from the conduct of war. As an

example, Lee (2015) has pointed out that the use of

drone technology also challenges human rights

norms (Lee, 2015).

Aside from concerns on war and individual

security, several authors have highlighted that the

The United States’ War on Terror in Pakistan: The Change in the Conduct of War and Implications for International Norms

321

US’s drone use in its war on terror undermines

Pakistan’s sovereignty (I. Ahmad, 2010; Nawaz,

2011; Henriksen and Ringsmose, 2015). The

undermining of Pakistan’s sovereignty makes

Pakistan lose its monopoly on the use of violence

due to the presence of US drones within their

territory (M. Ahmad, 2014a; M. Ahmad, 2014b).

Notwithstanding the issues and concerns with the

US’s war on terror in Pakistan, however, some of the

scholars cited in this paper have acknowledged that

not all views the war on terror in Pakistan as a bad

idea. For instance, Williams (2010) has argued that

there are three points to ponder on the drones used

by the US in Pakistan and its implications for

Pakistan’s security: 1.) drones are the only piece of

technology that can reach the FATAs, 2.) drones use

can cause unnecessary deaths to Pakistan’s

population, however, 3.) its use are regarded by

some actors within Pakistan’s society as a tool in

ensuring their security against threats. Particularly

for the third point, it highlights Williams’ discussion

that the appreciation of Pakistani people on drones

use within its borders is at best, complex in nature.

Considering both the advantages and the

concerns attributed to the use of drones on military

operations and warfare, scholars and students of

International Politics have to rethink about the

implications of this emerging technology. The

change in the capability of the conduct of war shows

that as technology advances, its lethality is also

increasing. This is particularly seen in the case of

Pakistan, as there are many recorded casualties.

However, the biggest challenge that has been

brought by the use of this technology is that it is

currently challenging the norms in the conduct of

international affairs. This is an area of concern for

scholars and students of International Politics since

international rules and norms do not adapt easily to

the changes happening in the international system.

Thus it is incumbent upon scholars and students,

including officials from different states and

international organizations, to think about this

ongoing development carefully.

6 CONCLUSION

Given the discussion on the topic of this paper,

drone technology was able to alter how warfare is

conducted. The use of drones clearly has tactical

advantage to its user as it does not require its

operator to be physically present at the site of

conflict.

The paper was also able to find out that there are

challenges as far as its use is concerned. The issues

that were affected by the use of drones fall mostly

with issues on ethics, morality, and the idea of a just

war. In this regard, the use of drones was able to

alter how warfare is conducted as it gives undue

advantage to its users and great disadvantage to

drones’ targets. As far as Pakistan’s case is

concerned, the literature provided insights on the

US’s war on terror in Pakistan, and their

implications for Pakistan’s security. Likewise, the

data cited in this paper shows that the US was able

to undermine its targets in Pakistan with the use of

modern technology such as drones.

However, this tactical advantage has its price.

The data shows that there are serious repercussions

with regard to its use. It was found out that one out

of every four killed were civilians, and one of

sixteen people that were killed are children (Bureau

of Investigative Journalism, 2016). Even if there are

issues as far as the US’s drones use is concerned,

there are some actors still recognizes the impact of

the technology in promoting Pakistan’s security

against terrorist groups within their borders. Given

the complexity of the ideas (both positive and

negative) on the use of drone technology on warfare,

the world should recalibrate its policies towards

drones as their use challenge existing norms on the

conduct of war.

REFERENCES

Aas, K. F. (2012) (In)security-at-a-distance: rescaling

justice, risk and warfare in a transnational age. Global

Crime, 13(4), pp. 235-253.

Ahmad, I. (2010) The U.S. Af-Pak Strategy: Challenges

and Opportunities for Pakistan. Asian Affairs: An

American Review, 37, pp. 191-209.

Ahmad, M. (2014a) The legality of unmanned aerial

vehicles outside the combat zone: a case study of the

Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.”

Defense & Security Analysis, 30(3), pp. 245-253.

Ahmad, M. (2014b) The United States Use of Drones in

Pakistan: A Politico-Strategic Analysis. Asian Affairs:

An American Review, 41(1), pp. 21-29.

Aslam, M.W. (2012) Understanding the ‘Pak’ in ‘AfPak’:

the Obama administration’s security policy for

Pakistan at the mid-term. Journal of Policing,

Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 7(1), pp. 2-21.

Boyle, M. (2015) The legal and ethical implications of

drone warfare. The International Journal of Human

Rights, 19(2), pp. 105-126.

Bureau of Investigative Journalism. (2016) Get the Data:

Drone Wars. Retrieved from

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

322

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/proje

cts/drones/drones-graphs/

Callam, A. (2010) Drone Wars: Armed Unmanned Aerial

Vehicles, International Affairs Review, 18. Retrieved

from http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144.

Clarke, R. (2014) What drones inherit from their

ancestors. Computer Law and Security Review, 30, pp.

247-262.

Enemark, C. (2011) Drones over Pakistan: Secrecy,

Ethics, and Counterinsurgency. Asian Security, 7(3),

pp. 218-237.

Flick, U. (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research

Edition. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi,

Singapore: Sage Publication.

Henriksen, A and Ringsmose, J. (2015) Drone warfare and

morality in riskless war. Global Affairs, 1(3), pp. 285-

291.

Lee, S. (2015) Human Rights and Drone Warfare. Peace

Review, 27(4), pp. 432-439.

Manjikian, M. (2016) Becoming Unmanned: the

gendering of lethal autonomous warfare technology.

International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16, pp. 48-

65.

Nawaz, S. (2011) Drone Attacks Inside Pakistan: Wayang

or Willing Suspension of Disbelief? Georgetown

Journal of International Affairs, 12(2), pp. 79-87.

Rafique, Z and Anwar. M.A. (2014) Insurgency in

Afghanistan: implications for Pakistan’s internal and

external security. Defense & Security Analysis, 30(3),

pp. 266-282.

Shaw, I. (2013) Predator Empire: The Geopolitics of US

Drone Warfare. Geopolitics, 18(3), pp. 536-559.

Shaw, I. (2016) Scorched Atmospheres: The Violent

Geographies of the Vietnam War and the Rise of

Drone Warfare. Annals of the American Association of

Geographers, 106(3), pp. 688-704.

Sifton, J. (2012, February 7) A Brief History of Drones,

The Nation. Retrieved from

https://www.thenation.com/article/brief-history-

drones/

Straub, J. (2016) Consideration of the use of autonomous,

non-recallable unmanned vehicles and programs as a

deterrent or threat by state actors and others.

Technology in Society, 44, pp. 39-47.

Warrior, L. C. (2015) Drones and Targeted Killing: Costs,

Accountability, and U.S. Civil-Military Relations.

Foreign Policy Research Institute by Elsevier Ltd., pp.

95-110.

Wilcox, L. (2015) Drone warfare and the making of

bodies out of place.” Critical Studies on Security, 3(1),

pp. 127-131.

Williams, B. G. (2010) The CIA’s Covert Predator Drone

War in Pakistan, 2004-2010: The History of an

Assassination Campaign. Studies in Conflict &

Terrorism, 33(10), pp. 871-892.

The United States’ War on Terror in Pakistan: The Change in the Conduct of War and Implications for International Norms

323