Abstract: Drone technology has become a significant discourse in a nation’s national security, while this technology could constitute a danger to national security on the one hand, on the other hand, it is used in developed and developing countries for border security, and in some cases, for protection of security agents and migrants. In the case of Nigeria, drones are used by the military to monitor and tighten security around the borders. However, terrorist groups have devised a means to utilize the technology to their advantage. Therefore, the potential danger in the widespread proliferation of this technology has become a myriad of risks. The research on the effects of cross-border use of drones in Nigerian national security looks at the negative and positive consequences of using drone technology. The study employs the use of interviews and relevant documents to obtain data while the study applied the Just War theory to justify the reason why countries use force; it further buttresses the points with what the realist theory thinks about the use of force. In conclusion, the paper recommends that the Nigerian government through the National Assembly should pass a bill for the establishment of a law that will guide the use of armed and unarmed drones in Nigeria enforced by the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority and the office of the National Security Adviser.
Abstract: A decision that deals with international disputes, be it arbitral or judicial, has to properly reflect objectivity and coherence with existing rules of international law. This paper shows the decision of the Ethio-Eritrea Claims Commission on the jus ad bellum case is bereft of objectivity and coherence, which contributed a disservice to international law on many aspects. The Commission’s decision that holds Eritrea in contravention to Art 2(4) of the UN Charter based on Ethiopia’s contention is flawed. It fails to consider: the illegitimacy of an actual authority established over contested territory through hostile acts, the proper determination of effectivites under international law, the sanctity of colonially determined boundaries, Ethiopia’s prior firm political recognition and undergirds to respect colonial boundary, and Ethio-Eritrea Border Commission’s decision. The paper will also argue that the Commission confused Eritrea’s right of self-defense with the rule against the non-use of force to settle territorial disputes; wherefore its decision sanitizes or sterilizes unlawful change of territory resulted through unlawful use of force to the effect of advantaging aggressions. The paper likewise argues that the decision is so sacrilegious that it disregards the ossified legal finality of colonial boundaries. Moreover, its approach toward armed attack does not reflect the peculiarity of the jus ad bellum case rather it brings about definitional uncertainties and sustains the perception that the law on self-defense is unsettled.