The principle that the courts will not sit in judgment on the sovereign acts of a foreign state includes a prohibition against adjudication upon the "legality, validity or acceptability of such acts, either under domestic law or international law." The rationale for this principle, is, in part, founded upon the proposition that the attitude and approach of one country to the acts and conduct of another is a matter of high policy, crucially connected to the conduct of the relations between the two sovereign powers. To examine and sit in judgment on the conduct of another state would imperil relations between the states.

Unmanned drone strikes have been a contentious legal issue, especially their use in Pakistan. In November, JURIST guest columnist Samar Warsi [professional profile] argued [JURIST comment] that drone attacks were counterproductive and hurt American attempts at foreign policy improvement. In August UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Ben Emmerson said that the US government must allow an independent investigation [JURIST report] of the legality of its drone strike policy. In July the Pakistan Ambassador to the US called on the CIA to stop using drone strikes [JURIST report]. Earlier that month US lawmakers expressed concern over the use of drones within the US [JURIST report] at a hearing in the US House Committee on Homeland Security [official website]. Also in July the Center for Constitutional Rights [advocacy website] and the ACLU filed a suit [JURIST report] challenging the US government's targeted killing of three US citizens in drone strikes. Commentators have suggested that the CIA's claim that there have been zero civilian casualties due to drone strikes needs to be seriously examined [JURIST op-ed].