Drone Deaths Violate Human Rights: The Applicability of the iccpr to Civilian Deaths Caused by Drones

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-241
Author(s):  
Jessica Lynn Corsi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control

This article argues that the thousands of lethal drone strikes conducted since 2001 violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr), and in particular, the right to life. The analysis provided is also applicable to the right to life enshrined in customary international law and regional human rights treaties. While most legal and academic commentary on deaths caused by drones has focused on an international humanitarian law (ihl) framework—perhaps because the primary weaponised drone user, the United States, insists that this is the appropriate legal context—this article argues that a human rights framework for assessing lethal drone strikes is preferable, useful, and necessary. Not only is it likely that the so-called war on terror is a semantic rather than a legal war, the iccpr continues to apply during conflict. Moreover, opacity surrounds most lethal drone strikes, which the Trump administration appears likely to increase, while simultaneously reducing Obama-era safeguards. In that context, a human rights assessment, which will be inherently more stringent towards fatalities than an ihl framework, is urgently needed. The article concludes that the right to life attaches to everyone regardless of the territory in which they are targeted; that effective jurisdiction and control is satisfied upon ability to lethally target an individual; that relevant iccpr rights apply in ungoverned territories as well; and that the threat of terrorism does not displace these rights or the applicability of the iccpr.

scholarly journals The Right to Life

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the rules and principles of the international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the right to life. It discusses the origins and scope of the right to life and clarifies that the protection provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not cease in times of war. It also considers some widely-recognized exceptions to or limitations upon the right to life, including killing in self-defence and the lethal use of force by the authorities in order to prevent crime. This chapter argues that while resorting to armed force may be necessary to prevent human rights violations, its benefits should not be exaggerated.

scholarly journals A new paradigm of human rights in the context of the global threats development

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 02011
Author(s):  
Georgy Borisovich Romanovsky ◽  
Olga Valentinovna Romanovskaya ◽  
Vladislav Georgievich Romanovsky ◽  
Anastasia Andreevna Ryzhova ◽  
Olga Aleksandrovna Ryzhova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Homo Sapiens ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Biomedical Technologies ◽  
The Right

The purpose of the research is to formulate the general guidelines for the transformation of human rights as a result of global threats. The methodological framework was the methods of comparative legal research, which showed the general trends in the development of the human rights legislation under the influence of global threats. By the example of the responses of states to the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, it is shown how legislative innovations expanding the powers of law enforcement agencies and special services have led to the revision of the content of such basic human rights as the right to privacy and/or the right to personal inviolability. Highlighted is the concept of the “war on terror” (formulated by the United States President in 2001), which allows terrorists to be treated as representatives of a belligerent but without providing any international guarantees enshrined in the provisions of the international humanitarian law. The consequences of the introduction of biomedical technologies, that are aggressive towards humans, are presented, namely the creation of chimeric organisms that contribute to blurring the interspecific boundaries; creation of a genetically modified organism – human embryo; the development of an artificial uterus capable of bearing a human fetus practically from the time the male and female reproductive cells join. The results consist in the identified trends in the development of legal institutions, such as the formulation of new human rights often replacing or distorting the content of basic recognised human rights enshrined in the key international documents and constitutions of the countries of the world; bypassing the legal prohibitions established over the past decades by introducing relativism and assessing any situation from the point of view of the conditions for its occurrence. The novelty of the research lies in the authors’ position and is formulated as follows: the modern system of human rights is facing a serious crisis. Failure to effectively respond to symbolic challenges and threats is one of the factors necessitating the need for monitoring many regulatory documents. But a significant reason for the backlash also lies in the fact that we are at the turn of an era when technology shows humanity the possibility of correcting the very nature of Homo sapiens.

The Right to Life and the International Law Framework Regulating the Use of Armed Drones

2020 ◽  
pp. 153-189
Author(s):  
Christof Heyns ◽  
Dapo Akande ◽  
Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne ◽  
Thompson Chengeta
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
The Right

This chapter provides a holistic examination of the international legal frameworks which regulate targeted killings by drones. It argues that for a particular drone strike to be lawful, it must satisfy the legal requirements under all applicable international legal regimes. It is argued that the legality of a drone strike under the jus ad bellum does not preclude the wrongfulness of that strike under international humanitarian law or international human rights law. The chapter then considers the important legal challenges that the use of armed drones poses under each of the three legal frameworks mentioned above. It considers the application of the right to life in armed conflict, particularly in territory not controlled by the state conducting the strike. The chapter then turns to some of the key controversies in the application of international humanitarian law to drone strikes, such as the possibility of a global non-international armed conflict and the question of who may be targeted in a non-international armed conflict. The final substantive section considers the law relating to the use of force by states against non-state groups abroad.

scholarly journals Non-universal Human Rights? How Article 6 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Undermines Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-117
Author(s):  
Billy Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Universal Human Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights facilitates inequality regarding the imposition of the death penalty and thus, it cannot ensure universality for the protection of the right to life. Paragraph two of this article states: ‘sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.’ This article argues that the vagueness of the phrase ‘the most serious crimes’ allows states to undermine human rights principles and human dignity by affording states significant discretion regarding the human rights principles of equality and anti-discrimination. The article posits that this discretion allows states to undermine human dignity and the concept of universal human rights by challenging their universality; by facilitating legal inequality between men and women. Accordingly, it asserts that the implications of not expounding this vague phrase may be far-reaching, particularly in the long-term. The final section of this article offers a potential solution to this problem.

scholarly journals Extraterritorial application of the right to life on the high sea . Commentary to the Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee of 27 January 2021, A.S., D.I., O.I. and G.D. against Italy, Communication No. 3042/2017

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Pacholski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Rescue Operation ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

The subject matter of this commentary, which instigates the Views of the Human Rights Committee of 27 January 2021, is the protection of one of the fundamental human rights – the right to life. The Committee, as an authority appointed to oversee compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, had to decide on the issue of Italy’s responsibility for failing to provide assistance to a boat in distress, even if the area in which the vessel was located was not within the territory of this state and other acts of international law attribute the responsibility for executing the rescue operation to a third country. According to the Committee’s views, which applied extraterritorial approach to the protection of the right to life, whenever states have the opportunity to take action for the protection of human rights they should do everything possible in a given situation to help people in need.

Rethinking the Permissive Function of Military Necessity in Internal Non-International Armed Conflict

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosuke Onishi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
The Right

This article advocates limiting the permissive impact of military necessity on the right to life. It has been argued that military necessity justifies deviations from international human rights law (IHRL) because this body of law is inadequate to deal with the necessities arising out of armed conflict. The article argues that while this rationale is convincing, it should not mean that conduct that is lawful under humanitarian law is necessarily also lawful under human rights law. The degree of force that may be used under international humanitarian law (IHL) is often superfluous. In some instances such violence is tempered by thejus ad bellum, but this body of law does not apply in internal non-international armed conflict (NIAC). The article concludes by exploring the potential for IHRL to play a role in tempering superfluous violence in NIAC that is similar to that whichjus ad bellumplays in international conflict.

Frontiers of International Law, Part One: The Chechen People, Continued

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
René Lefeber ◽  
David Raič
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Parent State ◽  
The People ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

We agree with André de Hoogh that the Chechens did not possess a right to external self-determination prior to the massive indiscriminate use oi military force by Russia in December 1994. At no point have we argued or suggested otherwise. Hence, up to December 1994, the Chechen claim did indeed not meet the conditions set by paragraph seven of the Friendly Relations Declaration. However, the Friendly Relations Declaration needs to be interpreted in view of usus and opinio iuris. In other words, one has to analyse how this paragraph has developed in customary international law. According to our analysis of the law of self-determination, the emergence of a right to external self-determination depends on two cumulative conditions, viz. 1) the serious and persistent violation of the right to internal self-determination and 2) the exhaustion of all total and international peaceful remedies by the people concerned to effectuate its right to internal self-determination. These conditions must be deemed fulfilled if the parent state seriously and massively violates the fundamental human rights and freedoms – in particular by an arbitrary violation of the right to life – of the persons belonging to the people concerned.

Use of force during occupation: law enforcement and conduct of hostilities

2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (885) ◽  
pp. 267-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Watkin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Simultaneous Application ◽  
Occupied Territory ◽  
The Right ◽  
Governing Law

AbstractThis article explores the law governing the maintenance of public order and safety during belligerent occupation. Given the potential for widespread violence associated with international armed conflict, such as occurred in 2003–2004 in Iraq, it is inevitable that military and police forces will be engaged in activities that interface and overlap. Human-rights-based norms governing law enforcement, such as the right to life, are found in humanitarian law, permitting an application of both law enforcement and conduct of hostilities norms under that body of law. This results in the simultaneous application of these norms through both humanitarian and human rights law, which ultimately enhances the protection of inhabitants of the occupied territory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document