The EU and armed drones – epilogue
The countries of the European Union are moving into the era of weaponized drones. While the United Kingdom remains the only EU country to deploy armed drones, several other EU member states are seeking to acquire weapons-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or are debating their acquisition. Many European countries are also now involved in projects to develop weapons-capable drones themselves, though it is expected that European-made drones will not be ready for deployment for at least 10 years. Nevertheless, despite these developments and despite the extensive use of armed drones by the United States, the EU has not yet adopted any collective public position on some of the most hotly debated issues associated with the use of UAVs. Even individual member states have been slow to expound clear positions on the legal parameters for drone strikes. From one perspective, it might be thought odd that the development of a new weapons platform should give rise to demands for a defined European position. Admittedly, the acquisition of armed UAVs raises some questions for military forces that are different from those associated with other weapons systems: their combination of targeting precision, ability to remain over the battlespace for an extended period and elimination of any physical risk to the forces operating them are qualitatively different from other available military technologies and change the nature of the military engagement with the enemy. However the most striking feature of the global debate about drones has been the degree to which it has come to revolve around the way the United States has used UAVs to target suspected terrorists outside of battlefield conditions as part of its global campaign against al-Qaeda and associated groups. Calls for the EU to adopt a position on drones can most often be reduced to a request for clarification of the European view on the legality and morality of targeted killing conducted against individuals who do not pose an immediate threat to the forces attacking them. US practice in this area has gone beyond the boundaries that most western countries previously regarded as defining the limits of legitimate use of force. There are several reasons why it would be desirable for the EU to adopt a clearer line on this question. Bruno Oliveira Martins and Benedikt Backhaus (2015) highlight what is perhaps the most important one: given Europe’s long-standing role in helping define international norms, it would be regrettable for the EU not to participate in establishing the correct standards for a practice that could, under the legal regime asserted by the United States, cause significant damage to the international rule of law. As Elisabeth Schweiger (2015) argues, European silence should not necessarily be read as consent, but the
A common European position on armed drones? Charting EU member states’ views on questions of counterterrorism uses of force
This article gauges the extent to which European Union (EU) governments share the United States’ position on armed drones and targeted killing. In doing so, it aims to assist in distilling a common EU position on the use of armed drones and a legal framework for counterterrorism-related uses of force. The article includes a summary of the results of a questionnaire sent to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defence, Justice and intelligence services of all 28 EU member states. The authors also parsed other relevant sources that could evince governments’ official positions (such as public statements, policy documents, etc.). Notwithstanding that an EU Common Position may be difficult and politically sensitive to achieve, the authors are convinced it is worthwhile to strive towards as much of a consensus within the EU as possible. A solid EU position based on the rule of law is necessary as a counterweight against the current US position, which still raises serious questions under international law. The EU will be stronger in its criticism of the USA if it speaks with a unified voice.
Social Health Insurance Reforms—Mid-Term Experiences of Poland and Russia
As a result of transition process to market economy, Poland and Russia have come a long way from a centrally planned budget for social security to an insurance-type model in the social sphere. After more than two decades of reforms, it seems essential to compare and evaluate the policy solutions introduced in terms of the reform goals achieved and exposure to current challenges. The paper presents an analysis and comparison of social health insurance reforms conducted in Poland and Russia since the beginning of the 1990s. Moreover, the current problems of and future challenges for health care financing systems are identified. The varied experiences of Poland and Russia over more than 20 years show mid-term lessons which could be useful to other countries, especially those that face socio-economic transformation, in their choice of strategy and the practice of similar reforms.