Et quand ils prétendent, en contradiction flagrante avec la condition précédente, imposer le respect du droit international comme autre condition de vente une autre contradiction apparaît aussitôt,
The Great Drone Contradiction
▻https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/19/the-great-drone-contradiction-unmanned-aircraft-systems
Even analysts less skeptical than me would ask if the United States itself adheres to these principles.
Most notably, the United States does not say when international humanitarian law and/or international human rights law applies to which of its drone strikes.
Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, suggested in his 2013 report that countries should work collectively to determine how international law applies to the use of drones, and that armed drone states that invoke the right to self-defense — as the United States does — should submit a report to the Security Council for each country in which they use force. The United States has not yet done either, nor has it addressed outstanding U.N. queries about its targeted killings for over a dozen years.
It is hard to see how attacking anonymous, suspected low-level militants in the tribal areas of Pakistan, or providing closer support for the militaries of Pakistan or Yemen, meets these new principles. Based on the new policy, it would be difficult to justify selling military drones to the United States itself, given that the Obama administration has never provided the transparency or clarity to know if it is adhering to the principles that it now asks of potential recipient countries.
