It has been reported that a U. N. human rights official Wednesday questioned the legality of the use of drones to conduct airstrikes, the U. S. weapon of choice in Pakistan.

Employing unmanned aircraft to attack enemy positions by remote control could undermine rules intended to prevent free-lance executions and guaranteeing people the right to life, said Philip Alston, the U. N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions.

Legal justifications for such targeted killings are often based on "excessively broad circumstances" with a lack of accountability to ensure their legality, Alston said in a report issued by the United Nations in New York.

Alston said, "In terms of the first problem, there are indeed circumstances in which targeted killings may be legal. They are permitted in armed conflict situations when used against combatants or fighters, or civilians who directly engage in combat-like activities.

He further added, "But they are increasingly being used far from any battle zone. The United States, in particular, has put forward a novel theory that there is a 'law of 9/11' that enables it to legally use force in the territory of other states as part of its inherent right to self-defense on the basis that it is in an armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban and 'associated forces', although the latter group is fluid and undefined."

It was further reported that Alston called it an "expansive and open-ended interpretation" that "goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the U. N. Charter." He said if other nations used the same rationale, "it would cause chaos." (With Inputs from Agencies)