You are on page 1of 2

Conference: SMUN 2013 Committee: International Court of Justice Case: The Drone Campaign (Pakistan v.

The United States of America) Position: Judge Country: Ecuador The role of judges are to examine the veracity and cohesiveness of arguments brought forth by both parties, Pakistan and The United States of America, regarding the dispute of Drone Campaign carried out by The United States of America. Judges have to make decision based on international laws. The judges should take into consideration ethical issues related to, or arising from the case to base their value judgment on. Such issues include but not limited to: How far should a country intervene in anothers affairs? In this case the US has clearly intervened greatly in Pakistans affairs by carrying out a war on terrorists hiding in Pakistan. Judges are to decide whether the intervention is justified by the potential harm the terrorists may caused to US citizens and properties. Is it justifiable for Pakistani government to neglect the safety of their citizens on the ground of combating terrorism by permitting the US to carry out drone campaigns within their sovereignty?

Key contentions to be debated would include the following: Whether the drone campaigns causes unnecessary injury and suffering to the Pakistani people, such as life loss, physical pain for the injured/maimed and psychological distress for all citizens. Pakistan may argue that the aforementioned damage to civilians outweighs the effectiveness of the war against terrorism. The US may argue that civilians casualty in war is unavoidable and that it has taken all possible measures to prevent civilians casualty in the war; therefore the killing of civilians is justified. Whether the US has taken all possible precautions to ensure minimal collateral damage to Pakistani civilians, such as confirming the identity of suspected target. Pakistan may adduce evidence pointing that the US has done little to ensure the transparency in the target-determining process or to avoid human and property losses during drone campaigns. The US in turn can adduce evidence showing that they have made efforts in this respect by investing in the drone technologies which increases the precision of strikes and the accuracy of suspicious pattern of life identified. Whether the US violated the sovereignty of Pakistan when carrying out drone campaign in Pakistani land. Pakistan may argue that the US has violated its sovereignty when the

US failed to notify Pakistan government about drone attacks occurring within Pakistans jurisdiction. The US can argue that such formal procedure is unnecessary in this case when a tacit agreement was made between the two governments to allow for drone strikes; furthermore US intervention is justified on the ground of humanitarian work when the Pakistan government has failed to protect the people against terrorist forces and abuse by government agencies. The effectiveness of drone campaigns in exterminating terrorist cells in Pakistan, given that the campaigns can turn peace-loving citizens to extremists who are vehemently against the US. Pakistan may argue that the drone attacks are counterintuitive and that the net effect of these campaigns will only increase the number of terrorist in the region, further destabilise the country. The US on the other hand can assert that since civilians are impacted minimally, few would actually harbour hatred for the US and the outcome would be that terrorists are eliminated at the expense of a small number of civilian casualties.

A piece of evidence is proved to be worthy of consideration when its origin is clear and undisputed, its interpretation is single and unambiguous. A witness is credible when: He or she has no vested interest in the outcome of the court. This grant witness the partiality needed to make unembellished accounts and judgments. He or she is free from influence from both parties. This is to avoid manipulation of witness opinions by either side. He or she has the expertise or relevant experience regarding the matter at hand to provide an insightful perspective for the judges. This is to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the evidence the witness has to offer. Relevant case in the past: The intervention of NATO in Kosovo Conflict begs the question of which is more important, humanitarian intervention or state sovereignty? NATO took the position that the violation of human rights outweighed the importance of state sovereignty while critics asserted that NATO has violated the laws of war. Possible remedies for the dispute includes: Restitution of Pakistans sovereignty. Reparation for the destroyed properties, human resources, and retarded economic growth of Pakistan. Amounts of payments are to be confirmed by an independent committee which gauges the monetary value of the damage caused by drone campaigns. Formal apology from the US for the unnecessary killing of civilians and the unethical use of drone technology for ungainful purposes.