THE reported killing of a wanted militant and chief of Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Hakeemullah Mehsud in a US drone strike in North Waziristan on Nov 1 has further intensified the debate on these air strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas. During the last couple of months the debate has been continuing on different forums, including the United Nations, regarding the legality of these air strikes.

The killing of Hakeemullah Mehsud was followed by a hurriedly called core committee meeting of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) in Lahore the next day, which called for blockade of Nato supplies passing through Pakistan. The said meeting stated that legally, the judgment of the Peshawar High Court of May 2013 on drones clearly stated that if the US did not stop drones the Pakistan government must deny all logistic and other support to the US. The meeting stated that Nato supplies must be stopped and remain so till such a time that the federal government was able to stop drones and gave a clear commitment about the efforts for structured dialogue for peace.

The most important decision taken by the core committee, which also included the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Pervez Khattak, was to convene an emergency session of the provincial assembly to pass a resolution and to build up support with all other parties for this purpose. `It is imperative for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government to get passed a resolution in the provincial assembly on an emergency basis to stop Nato supplies,` the meeting resolved.

In the light of the said decision of PTI, the provincial assembly session has been con-vened for Nov 4. Thus the killing of Hakeemullah Mehsud, carrying head money of Rs50 million announced by Pakistan and $5 million announced by the US government, has also put a question mark on the fate of Nato supplies passing through Pakistan.

Legal experts believe that the provincial assembly has to tread a difficult path in passing any resolution for calling upon the provincial government to block Nato supplies.

As Nato supplies pass through Pakistanunder an agreement between the two countries, therefore, under the Constitution only the federal government is empowered to stop such supplies. The provincial government on its own could not stop these supplies as by doing so it would be violating the constitution.A legal expert, who did not want to be named, stated that this issue pertains to Part 1 of the Federal Legislative List incorporated in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan. Entry No.3 of the said list states: `External affairs, the implementing of treatise and agreements, including educational and cultural pacts and agreements, with other countries; extradition, including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to Governments outside Pakistan.

Furthermore, Entry 32 to the Federal Legislative List states: `International treaties, conventions and agreements and international arbitration.

The expert stated that at the most the provincial legislature could request the federal government to stop the Nato supplies. He added that in case the provincial governmentwent ahead with the decision of the PTI to block Nato supplies it would be an unconstitutional step which would put the federal government in trouble on international level.

Through drone attacks the US has eliminated two important leaders of TTP this year.

Apart from Hakeemullah the second in command of TTP, Waliur Rehman, who also carried a reward of $5 million, was killed on May 29, 2013.

In the PTI meeting the judgment of PHCdelivered on May 9 this year was also discussed. In that verdict the court had issued wide ranging directives to the government and security forces to ensure stoppage of such strikes in future including taking up the issue before the UN Security Council and the General Assembly.A two-member bench ofthe country comprising Chief Justice Dost Mohammad Khan and Justice Ms Musarrat Hilali on May 9 ruled in clear terms that `The drone strikes, carried out in the tribal areas (Fata) particularly North and South Waziristan by the CIA and US Authorities, are blatant violation of basic human rights and are against the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly Resolution, adopted unanimously, the provision of Geneva Conventions thus, it is held to be a war crime, cognisable by the International Court of Justice or Special Tribunal for War Crimes, constituted or to be constituted by the UN for this purpose.

The court had directed the government to take the matter seriously before the Security Council of the UN and in case it did not succeed there if veto power was unduly exer-cised by the US authorities then, urgent meeting of the General Assembly be requisitioned through a written request to resolve this menace in an effective manner.

Recently, the issue remained in focus on different forums. While the US government continued to say that it has been acting within the law while carrying out these air strikes, several international organisations have termed it illegal.

On Oct 22, the Amnesty International launched a report `Will I be next? US drone strikes in Pakistan`, wherein it particularly highlighted two incidents it said may have violated international law. The report pointed out that in one of the incidents 18 labourers were killed in a strike near the Afghan border as they were preparing to eat a meal at the end of their working day in July 2012.

In the second occurrence, a 68-year-old woman was killed as she picked vegetables in her family`s fields in October 2012.

The very next day Pakistan Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif also discussed the issue with US President Barack Obama in Washington.

Prior to AI report another important report `The civilian impact of drones: unexplained costs, unanswered questions` was jointly released by the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict by the end of 2012.

Later, on May 21 the International Crisis Group issued a report `Drones: myths and reality in Pakistan`. Both the reports have carried comprehensive recommendations both for the US and Pakistani governments and have also discussed the issue of non-combatant casualties in these attacks.