1
Statement by Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights concerning the launch of an inquiryinto the civilian impact, and human rights implications of the usedrones and other forms of targeted killing for the purpose ofcounter-terrorism and counter-insurgency
The Special Rapporteur today issued the following statement at a pressconference in London:In June of last year, at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, a group ofStates, including two permanent members of the Security Council, aswell as Pakistan and a number of other concerned States, made a jointstatement asking me to carry out an investigation, within the frameworkof this mandate, into the use of drones in the context of counter-terrorism operations.I issued a statement shortly afterwards to the effect that those Statesusing this technology, and those States on whose territory it is used, areunder an international law obligation to establish effective independentand impartial investigations into any drone attack in which it is plausiblyalleged that civilian casualties were sustained. I also indicated that ifthose States did not take steps to establish sufficiently robust andimpartial investigations it may, in the final resort, be necessary for theUN to conduct investigations into individual drone strikes.
2
The Inquiry that I am launching today is a direct response to therequests made to me by States at the Human Rights Council last June,as well as to the increasing international concern surrounding the issueof remote targeted killing through the use of UAVs. The exponential risein the use of drone technology in a variety of military and non-militarycontexts represents a real challenge to the framework of establishedinternational law and it is both right as a matter of principle, andinevitable as a matter of political reality, that the international communityshould now be focussing attention on the standards applicable to thistechnological development, particularly its deployment in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency initiatives, and attempt to reach aconsensus on the legality of its use, and the standards and safeguardswhich should apply to it.The plain fact is that this technology is here to stay, and its use intheatres of conflict is a reality with which the world must contend. It istherefore imperative that appropriate legal and operational structures areurgently put in place to regulate its use in a manner that complies withthe requirements of international law, including international humanrights law, international humanitarian law (or the law of war as it used tobe called), and international refugee law.At present there are at least three main legal theories vying for primacyof place on this question. There are those who contend that outsidesituations of recognised international armed conflict, the applicableframework is international human rights law, under which it is unlawful toengage in any form of targeted killing. The standards set out in
3
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and particularly the provisions ofArticle 6 which protects the right to life, permit the use of lethal force onlywhere it is strictly necessary as a matter of immediate self-defence.Under this analysis States wishing to take action against suspectedterrorists located outside a recognised situation of international armedconflict must first try to effect an arrest, and may use lethal force only ifthe person they are seeking resists arrest and it proves strictlynecessary to use firearms.At the other end of the spectrum the analysis that has been promoted byinternational lawyers in the United States, and by John Brennan,President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, to the effect that Westerndemocracies are engaged in a global against a stateless enemy, withoutgeographical boundaries to the theatre of conflict, and without limit oftime. This analysis is heavily disputed by most States, and by themajority of international lawyers outside the United States of America.A third way of analysing the issue is to ask whether a terroristorganisation is engaging in an internal (or non-international) armedconflict with a particular government such as the governments ofPakistan, Yemen and Somalia; and then to ask whether and in whatcircumstances it is lawful for a third State to become engaged as a partyto an internal armed conflict in support of the government forces. It isclear that as a matter of international law such engagement may belawful if it takes place at the express request of the government of theState concerned. It is much less clear whether it can be lawful for anoutside State such as the US to use military force without the expressconsent of the State concerned. International lawyers disagree on
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
UNHR Press Release 2013 Jan 24
Announcement from Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rappoteur, 2013 Jan 24 on the scope of his investigation, in 2013 into targeted killings and use of drones to kill people around the world. For more info on the context of this document, within International Law, see my Drone Scribd write-up.
206
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
