The SC took the necessary action after 9/11 when it passed UNSC 1373. Once that was done nations exercising it don't have to keep reporting back to the SC after every incident, any more than they did after every firefight in WWII.
UNSCR 1373 refers back to the right of self defence in the UN Charter, which I discussed above:
Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001)
And under the UN Charter Article 51, the US indeed has to report every instance of alleged 'Self Defence' until the UNSC addresses the issue.
If that was really the case the U.N. would be Pakistan's echo chamber, AM. Instead, Pakistan's entreaties have been met with a public, pregnant, silence. I'm the guy telling you what's wrong. It's not right that Pakistanis should be kept in the dark as to why their nation is held in equal regard as a flock of geese that keeps polluting the local pond.
Pakistan's ambassador to the UN has in fact raised the issue in the UN, but whether or not Pakistan raises the issue, the facts do not change, that the US cannot argue in favor of the legality of drone strikes based on Article 51 without implementing ALL of Article 51.
Okay, if the word "consent" is not important in this context, would you please care to explain the possible reasons causing Pakistan to still not raise the issue before the UNSC or the ICJ, at this late stage in the game?
After all, USA has given clear and consistent statements that it intends to use drone strikes as an effective tool in the war. Pakistan should know by now that its "protests" are going nowhere, so if it feels it is in the right, it should be prepared to take the matter further.
Please do keep in mind that while one may not agree with the actions of the government of Pakistan, those actions (or lack thereof) are internationally recognized to be with the due force of sovereign authority, unless you wish to argue to the contrary.
The reasoning remains the same, a desire to not escalate the conflict with the US and therefore reduce the possibility of a negotiated settlement to the issue.
Your argument is inherently flawed in that it suggests that the lack of utilization of one potential avenue of conflict resolution (UN or ICJ) somehow represents a form of 'consent' - it does not, for reasons already mentioned.
Therefore, Brennan's arguments to establish the legality of drone strikes fail because:
1. Consent: No official consent has been given by Pakistan, and Pakistan has clearly and strongly articulated its opposition to unilateral drone strikes by the US
2. Unwilling: Pakistan has offered numerous alternatives to the US: Joint drone strikes, PAF strikes, Pakistan controlled drone strikes
If you could just point out ONE time my argument was debunked I'd be thankful. (Brennan's logic rests on the same as mine, it seems.)
Brennan's logic was debunked in my posts above, so if you are arguing that your logic is the same as his, then consider your argument debunked one more time as well.
