The Use of Drones for Targeted Killing - Coursework Example

The use of Drones for Targeted Killing Introduction The Debate on Drones The issue surrounding targeted killing has in recent times come to prominence mainly due to the increasing use of unmanned drones being used to conduct these killings. According to Farley, the term drones is generally applied to various vehicles or systems that are designed to operate and work without the presence of human passenger-drivers.1 To pilot these vehicles, two distinct options can be used, these include the control of these vehicles by pilots in remote contact, or control via the use of internal computers. In recent times, drones have been used for targeted killings in a number of countries including Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.2 International Laws and Paradigms Supporting or opposing the use of drone strikes in Targeted Killings The use of lethal force such as drone strikes is generally regarded to be inherent to targeted killing and involves three main legal bodies. These the international humanitarian law and the human rights law which both regulate and protect the rights of the targeted individuals and bystanders and the international law on the use of interstate force which highlights the use of drones in conducting targeted killings between states. Under international law, the principles of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights law have generally been processed into two distinct paradigms pertaining to the situations where force against individuals is allowed. These two paradigms are: The paradigm of hostilities for all who participate in armed conflict. Under the provisions of this paradigm, states are allowed to use drones in the execution of targeted killings in combat situations. The Paradigm of hostilities for all other situations: Peacetime law enforcement is seen to have its basic origins in a number of various soft law instruments such as the UN International Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, which encompasses all the various actions performed by state law enforcement officers to impose public order, law and security on a state’s behalf regardless of the civilian or military state of the country’s officers. It is this aspect of the paradigm that can arguably be seen to be providing a basis for drone strikes to be conducted in non combat situations. However, as a result of the fact that law enforcement is primarily regulated by International Humanitarian laws, targeted killings using drones that are conducted on the basis of this paradigm are found to essentially be severely at odds with the fundamental human right to life.3 The Human right to life is found to be embodied in numerous human rights treaties in addition to its also being part of international customary law ius cogens.4 As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) allows for states to conduct death penalties provided that these penalties are duly imposed by a court, states can arguably use drones in targeted killings due to their positive obligation to ensure that they protect all of their citizens from being killed in an arbitrary fashion, as well as the negative obligation to ensure that they themselves refrain from arbitrarily killing their own citizen. This premise is seen to be similar to that of the ECHR which although prohibiting the intentional deprevation of life, nevertheless allows for this in the event that it is found to be necessary in the defense of another person from unlawful violence, quell insurrections or riots as well as in the arrest or prevention of the escape of an individual who has been lawfully detained. European states such as the United Kingdom can be able to use these provisions to justify their use of drone strikes in targeted killings. Legal Issues Pertaining to the Use of Drone Strikes in Targeted Killings There have been a number of concerns pertaining to the use of drone strikes in conducting targeted killings and especially so, outside of armed conflict some of these concerns variously include: Concerns have been raised over individual drone strikes conducted on funerals, schools, mosques or in meetings by elders who at times gather together in an attempt to try and amicably resolve certain community issues, where it is not uncommon for large numbers of civilians to be present. Even in instances where targeted killing drone strikes are aimed at either one or more individuals who may be deemed as being legitimate threat targets, the presence of relatively large civilian numbers may cause the strike to ultimately be quite disproportionate. Targeted killing drone strikes that result in large numbers of civilian deaths tend to raise concerns as to whether adequate precautionary measures were taken during the attack to sufficiently enhance the strike’s compliance with international humanitarian rules and laws governing proportionality and distinction in attacks.5 In the event of targeted killing drone strikes in noncombat contexts, there have been concerns over second strikes conducted on first responders and rescuers. These strikes may be deemed as violating the international humanitarian law of distinction while also contravening a number of specific rules that have been designed to protect the wounded as well as provide humanitarian assistance. The sometimes very short time between first and second strikes at some rescue sites has served to raise a number of questions as to how a given individual’s lawful target status could possibly be properly determined.6 It has been noted that at times, humanitarian actors sometimes choose to not attend to strikes immediately due to the fear of there potentially being a second strike. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has been noted as pointing out that if indeed the civilian rescuers are being intentionally targeted, there is no doubt as to the fact that such strikes should be considered as war crimes under international law. The current effect and nature of the targeted killing policy as has been practiced by countries such as the United Kingdom, Israel and the United States may in some instances be deemed to be contravening some certain sections of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is basically an international human rights treaty that is ratified by about 160 countries including the United Kingdom and the United States.7 By conducting target killings using drones, countries such as the United Kingdom are noted to be violating article 7 of this treaty, an article which is seen to prohibit inhumane, degrading and cruel treatment or punishment. The drone strikes are also noted to be in contravention of article 21 which provides a right for people to assemble peacefully as well as article 22 which provides a right to freedom of association.8 International Law Legal debate over the use of Drones The legal controversies surrounding the use of drones in target killings outside the context of war are seen to spring from questions raised surround the lawfulness of signature and target killings in light of sovereignty and constitutional issues.9 In recent times, the debate on drones has become quite heated and more contentious due to amendments in government policies such as those of the United States that now allow for the legal targeted killing of American citizens. The government memo highlighting this aspect was first issued by the department of justice in an attempt to try and justify the killing of various American citizens who are noted to be actively involved in Al Qaeda and were residing in foreign countries.10 The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions points out that although in most cases targeted killings actually tend to violate an individual’s right to life, in the somewhat exceptional circumstances of armed conflict, these targeted killings can be deemed as being quite legal. In the event that it is reliably established that the actual legality of a particular given drone strike is to be adjudged under the guidelines of jus in bello, then the general guidelines provided for under the international humanitarian laws will be seen to apply.11 In this case, the strike will generally have to at the minimum, comply with the IHL rules that are found to be applicable to the conduct of hostilities and in particular to those relating to proportionality. In addition the given strike must not employ the use of those weapons that are deemed to be unlawful under the provisions of the IHL.12 There has been considerable debate as to whether extraterritorial drone strikes or series of drone strikes are lawful under jus ad bellum which is the law that governs inter-state use of force. In line with this law’s provisions, drone strikes must ensure that they meet the international legal standards and rules that govern the intentional use of lethal force. It is argued that International human rights law is not only the main body of law that is responsible for governing the use of armed drones outside the confines of a military conflict, but also, it is the primary law used in law enforcement within the context of armed conflict. As such, the international legal standards that relate to the use of force by various law enforcement officials is seen to provide important guidance in this respect. Drone technology has been noted to have also triggered international humanitarian law pertaining to precaution in attacks. Frequent attacks by Belligerents have served to affirm the international law obligation for individuals and countries to take care of themselves in the event of attacks and this requirement is duly enshrined in Article 57 of Add. Protocol 1 from 1977. This critical principle of precaution is now considered to be customary international law. This principle now forms an important component in not only humanitarian law, but also the military manuals of most states. IHL is seen to only permit the use of lethal force only in instances where it is proportionate and extremely necessary.13 As such, the use of drone strikes in conducting targeted killings in non combat situations, killings which are typically understood to be both intentional and premeditated cannot be regarded as being lawful under the IHL. The IHL only allow for the use of intentional lethal force only in situations whereby the use of this force is found to be necessary in the protection against a threat to life. The use of this lethal force is also found to be applicable in situations where there is no other means such as non-lethal incapacitation or capture that can be used in preventing the given threat to life.14 Conclusion Drones have undoubtedly, increasingly become a powerful tool used by states in the control of persons and territories. While drones do have a number of benefits such as surveillance and applications whereby it is possible to eliminate the possible risk to humans and better precision in bomb attacks, they have however been noted to have a number of International law concerns and other demerits that cause for there to be calls for the use of drone strikes in targeted killings to be reconsidered. Some of these demerits are seen to infringe a number of international laws such as humanitarian laws governing attacks in noncombat situations, other risks include the probability of casualties among first respondents and emergency personnel as a result of second strikes, civilian deaths due to signature strikes and attacks on civilian targets such as schools and mosques. These negative factors resulting from the use of drones, have nevertheless caused the use of drones in conducting targeted killings outside the context of armed conflict to almost never be legal. Bibliography Borda A, International Humanitarian Law Inte. (Routledge, 2013) MacKinnon B, and Fiala A, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. (Cengage Learning, 2014) Ramcharan B, The Right to Life in International Law, Dordrecht: (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) 1985, pp. 149 and 188. James C, 29 Murders. (Xlibris Corp 2013) Pugliese J, State Violence and the Execution of Law: Biopolitical Caesurae of Torture, Black Sites, Drones: Law and the postcolonical : ethics, politics, & economy. (Routledge, 2013) Rae J, and Crist J, Analyzing the drone debates: targeted killings, remote warfare, and military technology. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot, 2014) Kleffner J, Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: General Issues, in T.D. Gill and D. Fleck(Eds.), The Handbook of International Law of Military Operations (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012) pp. 51-77, at p. 51. Jalālzaʼī M., Whose army: Afghanistans shrinking army, war criminals, private militias and the future of civil war. (New York : Algora Publishing, 2014) Melzer N, Conceptual Distinction and Overlaps between Law Enforcement and the Conduct of Hostilities, in T.D. Gill & D. Fleck (Eds.), Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations, (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress 2012) pp. 33-50, at p. 34. Farley R, Grounded: the case for abolishing the United States Air Force (Lexington, Kentucky : University Press of Kentucky, 2014) Casey-Maslen S, Weapons Under International Human Rights Law. (Cambridge University Press, 2014) Stanford University. Living Under Drones: Legal Analysis. Nd Accessed 19 May 2014R Read More