ITHACA, N.Y. -- On Nov. 4, 2002, an unmanned U.S. Predator drone flying in Yemen airspace launched a missile that hit a car containing six suspected al Qaeda members, one of them an American citizen. All six occupants were killed in the attack. Was this action valid under international law? 

The answer depends on your perspective, according to David Wippman, vice provost for international relations at Cornell University and a professor of law at Cornell Law School. Wippman and Matthew Evangelista, Cornell professor of government and director of the Peace Studies Program at Cornell, gathered perspectives from international experts to produce a scholarly look at changing wars, aging international laws and the need for new laws. "New Wars, New Laws? Applying the Laws of War in 21st Century Conflicts" (Transnational Publishers, 2005) is excerpted in an article by Wippman, "Do new wars call for new laws?" in the summer 2005 issue of Cornell Law Forum, abridged from his introduction to the book.

"The law of war always lags behind developments in technology and politics," said Wippman, who was a director for multilateral and humanitarian affairs at the National Security Council in 1998-99. "Most of the rules governing war were drafted at least 25 years ago, and many long before that." 

The book and the article provide a new look at how the changing face of armed conflict is pushing the limits of existing international and national laws about how wars are fought. They discuss how wars today are more complex than in the past, and they observe that adversaries often are members of shadowy terrorist groups who claim no special allegiance to any single country. In response, wartime tactics of countries such as the United States are evolving.

Changing tactics bring up new questions, Wippman said. For example, was the 2002 Predator attack in Yemen part of an international armed conflict? If so, the law of war applies, and the car's occupants may have been enemy combatants lawfully subject to attack, he said. But if the attack took place outside the context of an ongoing international armed conflict, then ordinary criminal and human rights law would govern. If so, one would have to charge, try and convict those suspected of terrorism before jumping to the execution stage, he said. 

To obtain a copy of the article, contact Kathleen Rourke, (607) 255-7477, ker8@cornell.edu. Cornell Law Forum is published by Cornell Law School. For more information about both, visit http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu.