Email
The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.
Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.
In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes". His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Addressing the conference, which was organised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a second UN rapporteur, Ben Emmerson QC, who monitors counter-terrorism, announced he would be prioritising inquiries into drone strikes.
The London-based barrister said the issue was moving rapidly up the international agenda after China and Russia this week jointly issued a statement at the UN Human Rights Council, backed by other countries, condemning drone attacks.
If the US or any other states responsible for attacks outside recognised war zones did not establish independent investigations into each killing, Emmerson emphasised, then "the UN itself should consider establishing an investigatory body".
Also present was Pakistan's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal action to halt the "totally counterproductive attacks" by the US in his country.
Heyns, a South African law professor, told the meeting: "Are we to accept major changes to the international legal system which has been in existence since world war two and survived nuclear threats?"
Some states, he added, "find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it's recognised as being an armed conflict."
If it is true, he said, that "there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime".
Heyns ridiculed the US suggestion that targeted UAV strikes on al-Qaida or allied groups were a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. "It's difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to [events] in 2001," he said. "Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.
"The targeting is often operated by intelligence agencies which fall outside the scope of accountability. The term 'targeted killing' is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often."
Heyns told the Guardian later that his future inquiries are likely to include the question of whether other countries, such as the UK, share intelligence with the US that could be used for selecting individuals as targets. A legal case has already been lodged in London over the UK's alleged role in the deaths of British citizens and others as a consequence of US drone strikes in Pakistan.
Emmerson said that protection of the right to life required countries to establish independent inquiries into each drone killing. "That needs to be applied in the context of targeted killings," he said. "It's possible for a state to establish an independent ombudsman to inquire into every attack and there needs to be a report to justify [the killing]."
Alternatively, he said, it was "for the UN itself to consider establishing an investigatory body. Drones attacks by the US raise fundamental questions which are a direct consequence of my mandate… If they don't [investigate] themselves, we will do it for them."
It is time, he added, to end the "conspiracy of silence" over drone attacks and "shine the light of independent investigation" into the process. The attacks, he noted, were not only on those who had been killed but on the system of "international law itself".
The Pakistani ambassador declared that more than a thousand civilians had been killed in his country by US drone strikes. "We find the use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the war against terror. It leads to greater levels of terror rather than reducing them," he said.
Claims made by the US about the accuracy of drone strikes were "totally incorrect", he added. Victims who had tried to bring compensation claims through the Pakistani courts had been blocked by US refusals to respond to legal actions.
The US has defended drone attacks as self-defence against al-Qaida and has refused to allow judicial scrutiny of the UAV programme. On Wednesday, the Obama administration issued a fresh rebuff through the US courts to an ACLU request for information about targeting policies. Such details, it insisted, must remain "classified".
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project, said: "Something that is being debated in UN hallways and committee rooms cannot apparently be talked about in US courtrooms, according to the government. Whether the CIA is involved in targeted lethal operation is now classified. It's an absurd fiction."
The ACLU estimates that as many as 4,000 people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002 in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians. The numbers killed have escalated significantly since Obama became president.
The USA is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or many other international legal forums where legal action might be started. It is, however, part of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where cases can be initiated by one state against another.
Ian Seiderman, director of the International Commission of Jurists, told the conference that "immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law".
One of the latest UAV developments that concerns human rights groups is the way in which attacks, they allege, have moved towards targeting groups based on perceived patterns of behaviour that look suspicious from aerial surveillance, rather than relying on intelligence about specific al-Qaida activists.
In response to a report by Heyns to the UN Human Rights Council this week, the US put out a statement in Geneva saying there was "unequivocal US commitment to conducting such operations with extraordinary care and in accordance with all applicable law, including the law of war".
It added that there was "continuing commitment to greater transparency and a sincere effort to address some of the important questions that have been raised".
Comments
21 June 2012 3:00PM
"On Thursday, the Obama administration issued a fresh rebuff through the US courts to an ACLU request for information about targeting policies. Such details, it insisted, remained classified."
Hence the need for the likes of Wikileaks. We need transparency from the governments who claim to act in our name for than ever.
Drone warfare opens a can-of-worms. What's stopping other states employed drones in the US or elsewhere? In all likelihood Drones will become smaller and less detectable.
21 June 2012 3:00PM
What 'international law'? Like that has ever meant anything anyway... the only international law is the same today as it was in ancient Greece: the powerful countries do what they like, and the weak countries have to put up with it.
21 June 2012 3:01PM
As long as Obama continues to send the enemies of the West to their just reward, I sincerely doubt that anyone will care about the letter of international law.
21 June 2012 3:02PM
Nevermind the potential instability Wikileaks could potentially cause.
21 June 2012 3:03PM
What a mess
21 June 2012 3:05PM
International law only applies to other countries, that would seem the US stance.
21 June 2012 3:06PM
About time this was raised as the pernicious breach of international law it is. then we all know how the US government has long held international law in contempt, like refusing to sign up to the ICC, doing away with habeas corpus, stepping around the Geneva Conventions by creating new classifications such as "unlawful combatant".
"I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
Obama has channelled Macbeth. A Democrat out-gunning the Republicans just to show he has cojones? Or the military-industrial complex propping up the US economy calling the shots?
Either way, they'll reap what they sow when China sends drones over the US in a pre-emptive strike to protect its national security.
21 June 2012 3:08PM
Hey Obama stop the drone strikes and you will get a second Nobel peace prize!
21 June 2012 3:09PM
There is no difference between the use of drones and Hellfire missiles to blow up CIA targets and civilians, and those setting bombs for the same purpose. Both are acts of terrorism.
21 June 2012 3:09PM
Surely this is a price worth paying for the hamburgerization of the world?
21 June 2012 3:12PM
@maughanlibrary
If you're looking for sources of instability, I'd recommend looking at the deployment of drones with the commensurate breaches of sovereignty and killing of civilians before I'd go looking at Wikileaks.
21 June 2012 3:15PM
The world's biggest war machine has always flouted international law. It swings it's dick at whom it pleases, and nothing ever changes.
21 June 2012 3:16PM
@Stummered
US law IS international law increasingly.
One only needs to look at the treaties that supine governments the world-over sign with the US to permit one-way extradition, uphold US-standards on patents, permit US surveillance within our borders and provent US-based corporations from being prosecutable elsewhere.
9/11 has been the pretext to extent Pax-Americana Inc internationally.
21 June 2012 3:16PM
extend I meant.
21 June 2012 3:17PM
Mister Heyns Sir you seen to be missing a few points here most of these drone strikes have been aimed at both the taliban and al quada these are two groups who murder innocent people at random.
They are both a bunch cowardly rats that get what they deserve.
21 June 2012 3:17PM
Drones are a magnificent weapon of precision, renowned for their effectiveness and the British and US lives they have saved. The inventors of the Drone surely ranks alongside R.J Mitchell in the annuals of aviation genius.
And the Taliban is already flouting international law by fighting a war of aggression in one country while seeking refuge in another. For the new asymmetric warfare the West needs an asymmetric response and the Drones are perfect - no Western pilots are in peril (why should they be, this is the Taliban's war), the attacks are carried out with precision (with civilians only killed when the Taliban deliberately hide behind them), and it has enabled the US to wipe out much of the Taliban leadership and put this ghastly medieval outfit on the run.
The anti western lobby called for precision attacks and they got them, needless to say they are still not happy, thus outing their real agenda. They want us to lose. And they don't care about Allied losses.
My advice to the generals is to ignore the Owen Bowcott's of this world and get on with winning the war. As for the UK we should order another 25 Drones, they're simply too good to ignore.
21 June 2012 3:18PM
Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer says it all in Salon.
One honest US citizen condemning Obama's crimes.
21 June 2012 3:18PM
Yes. The only country in the world that has a right to security and own foreign policy is the US. Everyone else is to expect the US to dictate to it, and violate without complaint. All in the name of security for the US only. The overlords in their high castle. Thankfully castles can be breached, through persistence, and overlords overthrown. The US has gone from welcome ally to a rogue state that now needs to be managed.
21 June 2012 3:18PM
No more US money for the UN, then
21 June 2012 3:18PM
I find it interesting that Obama's response to the threat to international security posed by the Stateless terrorism of Islamist groups is seen as the problem. The drones are a response, unlike the pre-emptive wars started by the previous administration. What would the UN have the West's only Superpower (like it or not) do? Sit and wait for the next attack? I think not. Wikileaks is as much a threat to international law as the drone program is but where is the outrage from the UN. I really think that, given its inability to stop the brutal murder of civilians in Syria, the UN ought, perhaps, to shut up and think about what it is doing or not doing to help the cause of international law.
21 June 2012 3:20PM
Deploying the 'What's good for General Motors..' argument I see.
I'd prefer to choose my own enemies, not have them chosen for me - if that's OK with Godsown piece of land?
21 June 2012 3:21PM
Shift the drone strikes to Syria away from central Asia, and everything is wrapped up in a nice neat box of moral superiority for the rest of the world to huff and puff at! Except for Russia that is
21 June 2012 3:21PM
@alexguy and Cybershot
Loving your gilded cages I see. What's good for US corporations you presume to be good for you and for the rest of us on this small planet.
21 June 2012 3:22PM
I wonder how the use of drones weighs up with rightwingers oft repeated spiel that "there is nothing as cowardly as a suicide bomber". I've always struggled to see much difference between suicide bombers taking out civilians as unfortunates who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and regular army units firing mortars into marketplaces, artillery shelling civilian populations or airborne forces bombing civilian positions and now we can add drones being used in civilian areas
no doubt some of the regular armchair generals will come in and set me straight
21 June 2012 3:23PM
Well done Obama, keep those drones falling down on their heads regardless of what anyone says. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. The drones are doing a great job of removing them and saving the lives of our servicemen and women.
Darken the skies above them with drones if you need too..........
21 June 2012 3:23PM
Thought this piece would get the US haters out of the woodwork and onto their keyboards...
21 June 2012 3:25PM
State sponsored murder. Let's call it what it is.
Also, the precedent it sets is truly terrifying. As the USA cannot be sure who it is attacking (relying on paid 'spotters' earning thousands of dollars for identifying 'terrorist targets') and many civilians have been killed, thus it legitimizes attacks on civilians by 'terrorists'.
21 June 2012 3:26PM
@bradfudbantam
"Thought this piece would get the US haters out of the woodwork and onto their keyboards..."
Well it's great then that armchair generals such as yourself have arrived to set things to rights.
21 June 2012 3:27PM
Unless the world's humanity around the globe,has suddenly all gone blind and deaf.
Then all would already know,that America and it's faithful litte puppy Britain. Have long since given up adhering to international law. The state sanctioning of the murder of those who they suspect of being against their percieved interests,now just a routine occurrence. American presidents these days,even claim the right to muder their own citizens. The due process of law,being a long abandoned right.
That of course is quite horrific on it's own. However when the pair of them,then claim the right to the high moral in the world and proceed to lecture other countries on human rights.
Is where their delusions and hypocrisy,can't fail to bring the bile up to the throat.
21 June 2012 3:28PM
"other states"....
Oh right. Just them then.
21 June 2012 3:28PM
Once again, Talleyrand's famous dictum is apt: "It's worse than a crime, it's a mistake".
How can the Americans be so stupid as to think this isn't heading for them someday? You reap the wind, you sew the whirlwind.
21 June 2012 3:28PM
It is possible to be critical of US foreign policy without hating the USA, thought I'd point that out.
21 June 2012 3:28PM
Can't beleive Jimmy Carr has drones.
21 June 2012 3:29PM
Except that Wikileaks has potential to unsettle relations between many many states. Where drone strikes are really only effecting a handful.
It's not as though Pakistan is making a genuine effort to prevent insurgents entering Afghanistan so they can hardly complain.
21 June 2012 3:29PM
(That should be "Sew the wind, reap the whirlwind" obviously...)
21 June 2012 3:30PM
finally someone has the courage to stand up and tell it as it is.
21 June 2012 3:32PM
How do you define "enemies of the West"?
With no formal control over how the US uses this new power it can and will be abused.
The lines can quite easily be blurred between, say,
Terrorists
Politicians with links to terrorists
Politicians critical of the US or otherwise inconvenient
Journalists critical of the US or otherwise inconvenient
And so on
21 June 2012 3:33PM
Good to see that you are willing to recognise the special genius of the WW2 German aeronautical industry - the Henschel Hs 293 and Fritz-X radio-guided flying bombs are probably the true forerunners of the present drones. Shift over, Mitchell, make room for Herren Wagner and Kramer beside you.
Has the USA learnt any other methods of war-fighting from that era, do you think, at least as far as observing international law goes?
21 June 2012 3:35PM
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor
Rest easy.
Well ok, yours was a bogus point added for effect, but the rest of us can rest easy, it ain't going to happen, It's why we have a defence budget, which I know some here are also opposed to.
21 June 2012 3:35PM
Your putting the cart before the horse.
People aren't complaining about this because they hate the US.
They hate the US because it is so arrogant as to think it can fly into sovereign countries and extra-judicially murder whoever it wants.
21 June 2012 3:36PM
wait till russia and China start doing it .. that will be fun ..
21 June 2012 3:36PM
I'm looking forward to a drone war, drone on drone dog fighting with the only casualties civilians in the cities of the world.
21 June 2012 3:36PM
If "there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping [the injured] after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime"
I am sure if the Pakistan had any evidence of this, they wouldn't hesitate to present it.
Traditional international law prefers invasions killing thousands over targeted killings of the leaders responsible. Of course leaders would prefer the laws to be that way, but that strikes me as a poor system.
21 June 2012 3:36PM
Umm, not sure you actually meant taking needle and thread to the wind, did you? :-)
Totally with you otherwise.
21 June 2012 3:36PM
In reading the comment above yours. It seems to have brought the lunatics out of the woodwork and on to their keyboards as well.
21 June 2012 3:36PM
@maughanlibrary
I'm sure if you've realised it yet but sovereign states aren't really running the show anymore - not by a long-shot. If the leaks demonstrated anything, they demonstrated the extend to which governments, western governments in particular have been parasitised to serve the interests of host corporations which lack real allegiance to any state. The interests served are often corporatic rather than civil in nature. That fact is the US war-machine serves the economic interests of a few first and foremost.
If this needs to be unsettled so that governments become accountable to people once again then so be it!
21 June 2012 3:37PM
I can just imagine the outcry from the US next time one of their enemies does something illegal to attack them. It really doesn't want to start an uncontrolled arms and dirty tricks race with China, if it thinks about it ... sadly, the American military-industrial complex rarely thinks past its next pay cheque.
21 June 2012 3:38PM
This is like the Nixon doctrine.
Nixon "If the president does it, its legal"
Obama "If the US does it, its legal"
21 June 2012 3:41PM
Good, then they will fight in the shade.
21 June 2012 3:41PM
10,000 casualties of drone use so far. Not to mention indiscriminate carpet bombings of list of Countries where casualties amount to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. US of A makes all the dictatorial regimes in the World look like Mother Theresa and Dalai Lama. War on terror IS the war of terror. As the US business machinery funds these acts of terror, it can only be stopped if we stopped doing business with the terrorist USA.