The biggest problem that Pakistan faces today is the escalating terrorism which has adversely affected the economy, security conditions, lifestyle, world image, progress and growth of Pakistan. Government has failed in the past years to come up with a solution to eradicate terrorism from its roots. And the war on terror is not only Pakistan’s war. The consequences of 9/11 have been drastic with US initiating its war on terror and target killing suspected members of AL-Qaeda and Taliban. The tribal areas of Pakistan have been subject to attack by US government through the use of unmanned aircraft known as “Drones”. According to Abbas, drones are the new tools of war, “unmanned aerial vehicles, armed with weapons and controlled from thousands of miles away by pilots who had live access to ground intelligence” (156). These drones are supposed to target the high profile terrorists hiding in these areas who are affiliated with terrorist groups. The first use of lethal force was done by US government in 2002 in Afghanistan where three people were killed in the strike (“Living under drones”). After the U.S invasion in Afghanistan, a number of Taliban fighters took refuge in northern areas of Pakistan and the U.S government used predator drones to monitor the area. It was not before June 2004 that the first drone strike was used in Pakistan in which the Talibani leader Nek Muhammed was killed. William writes about it: "In June 2004 he was killed along with several of his followers in a Predator drone missile strike on their compound. He was horribly burned and maimed in this first CIA drone attack in Pakistan and died soon thereafter" (205). Since then drones have been effective tools for U.S in the war against terror. The number of strikes increased under Obama’s administration after 2009. During the first year under Obama’s administration 51 predator drones were used against militants in Pakistan. An increase in this number was seen in 2010 where 118 such drones were used, more than a double as compared to the previous year and 27 such attacks were held by the mid of May 2011 while only 45 drones were used by President George W.Bush during his entire presidency (McCriskan, 793). The U.S. government has also used armed drones in Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Libya, and Iraq. The use of unmanned pilotless aircraft is among one of the most controversial issues in Pakistan. Although some may argue that drone strikes are very effective however, drone attacks should be stopped because they violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, preemptive killings without trial and error are wrong, there is a lot of collateral damage, the economic life of the area is adversely affected and they are counter-productive. Pakistan is a sovereign country and the use of drone strikes by U.S government breaches its autonomy. The use of force against another country is prohibited according to the article 2(4) of U.N charter. The two exceptions to this article are considerable while discussing the legality of the use of force by U.S in Pakistan. To begin with, the first exception arises when the use of force is with the consent of the host country, and secondly when it is as a response to some imminent threat and the host country is unwilling to take appropriate action (“Living under drones”). It should be noted that Pakistani government have been critical of drone attacks and have opposed the campaign. The spokesman for Pakistan’s foreign ministry, Aizaz Ahmed Chaudary said that such attacks are a violation to the sovereignty of Pakistan as well as international law. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif also restated his demand for an end to the U.S drone campaign in his first statement in the parliament. (Dawn). Thus, the stiff opposition by the government shows that Pakistan has not provided the consent to U.S for the campaign and so it is against the international law. Ben Emmerson, U.N. special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights said, “The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear: It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” (Imtiaz). This shows that the exception of the host country allowing the use of force doesn’t apply here. As the second exception to the article follows that even without the consent of the host government the use of force may not be a violation to the country’s sovereignty if it is “in self-defense in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat, and where the host state is unwillingto take appropriate action” (“Living under drones”) one may argue that drone strikes are carried out by the U.S government in response to the mournful incident of 9/11. However, some legal experts have questioned the legibility of the response and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, Christof He