Reviews: UK House of Commons Library Publishes Briefing on Al-Aulaqi

Lawfare readers who followed our coverage and analysis of the al-Aulaqi drone strike last fall (archived here) may be interested to see the UK House of Commons Library’s recently released research briefing on the matter (with citations including Jack’s influential post on Lawfare calling for the release of the al-Aulaqi OLC memo or its reasoning, John’s thoughtful op-ed in the Washington Post, and Ken’s detailed analysis on Opinio Juris). The briefing paper focuses on international law issues, though U.S. domestic law receives a relatively quick mention at the paper's end. While the briefing avoids drawing explicit conclusions, in service to the Library's stated goal of impartiality, it describes the “main arguments” for and against the strike as follows:

The main arguments in favour of the legality of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaqi are that:

• Al-Awlaqi was taking a direct part in hostilities against the US and therefore could lawfully be targeted under International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
• The US was allowed to use force in Yemen because Yemen had consented.
• Or, alternatively, it was a lawful act of self-defence because Yemen was unwilling or unable to prevent future attacks on the US.
• Al-Awlaqi’s human rights were not breached because he was not within the US’s jurisdiction.
• Al-Awlaqi’s constitutional rights to due process were met.

The main arguments against its legality are that:

• The US is not engaged in an armed conflict in Yemen, where the killing took place, so IHL did not apply.
• It did not meet the requisite conditions to be lawful self-defence.
• It was an extrajudicial killing that breached international human rights law.
• Al-Awlaqi’s constitutional rights to due process were not met.