Why is Pakistan not officially raising the issue of drones as violating it sovereignty from a legal perspective?


So according to internationally accepted law and norm, is the U.S. really violating Pakistani sovereigty when the drones are being carried out on non-state actors within Pakistan that it is either not-willing or unable to control which is crossing over to Afghanistan who carry out terrorim and violates that state's sovereignty?

U.S. under U.N. mandate, are protecting the borders of Afghanistan are either using drones as measure "defending" Afghanistan's security and sovereignty or are carrying the bombing to pre-empt potential threat.



So accordingly does Pakistan have locus-standi to raise the issue within the international law and norms that is concern to state sovereignty?


I am aware of the civilian deaths too, which is not acceptable but I jsut want us to discuss the legality or legitimacy of the issue from United Nation recognised criterai of state sovereignty, which people can go and check in U.N. documents.


Why has Pakistan consented to usage of drones in Pakistan in the first place? Read Obama's War, where Zardari says that what ever is reaction in Pakistan is just politics which will be handled and the U.S. should not worry about it. Zardari, I mean the [legally represented] president of Pakistan.

Any thought comrades?...

i hardly think america asks for permission, probably just blackmail of the government but officially there should be a concensus by the members of congress or whatever it is called in pakistan.

The UN is protecting Afghanistan's sovereignty? Is this what you believe? please define terrorism. Also, which non-state actors are you talking about? Pakistan gave the green light a long time ago for the drone attacks.

Keep in mind: US=UN=nato

That doesn't answer the question(s) I am raising Faye, with all due respect.

Ok, so why is Kiyani asking the U.S. to stop them. I am just asking you to discuss it from the perspective of international norm and law where a state is either unable or un-willing to prevent non-state actors within its border that violate it's neighbour's sovereignty? So Pakistan cannot raise the issue of state soverignty when it doesn't or cannot protect it itself and the authorities from Afghanistan are obliged to protect its soverignty and take action that is defensive or pre-emptive.

So why does Pakistan allow terrorist and non-state outfits violate Afghanistan's sovereignty?

Like it or hate it, the U.S. presence has the U.N. stamp.

Khaana the issue of FATA is a grey area due to its historical treaties with the British. Anyways that is beside the point. Pakistan has tacit agreements with US and are paid a hefty sum. However they have to set up their ghairat brigade within Pakistan. They can't openly tell their people that they aren't part and parcel of the deal...so they have to build this hype up. It is just one of those typical episodes of "ghairat brigade" barking similar to the Afia case, or Raymond davis.

it is illegal, but Pakistan allows it

Case closed, ghundak khan ghundala.

Actually Pakistani ISI and army is supporting it.
When they don't support something then they don't wait for parliament approval or any other authority. It is just like throwing dust in our eyes.

Aptly put bro, from another angle though. So it is just the disgraceful Paki politics... sad, only our people are the ones who pay the price.