UN Human Rights Council Panel Discussion on Drones

Written by

Last week the United Nations Human Rights Council convened a panel to  discuss the use of armed drones (remotely piloted aircraft) in counter-terrorism and military operations in accordance with international law. The panel was convened as part of the Human Rights Council’s 27th regular session, which finished last week.  The session held last Monday took the form of an interactive dialogue between a panel of experts, members of the Human Rights Council (i.e States), as well as observers. I had the honour to be invited to moderate what turned out to be a very interesting panel discussion. The panellists were Christof Heyns, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Ben Emmerson QC, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism; Shahzad Akbar, Legal Director, Foundation for Fundamental Rights; Alex Conte, Director of International Law and Protection Programmes, International Commission of Jurists;  and Pardiss Kebriaei, Senior Attorney, Centre for Constitutional Rights. Flavia Pansieri, the UN’s Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights opened the discussion.

There was a really interesting exchange of views, not only amongst members of the panel but also between states and NGOs. Over 20 states spoke, including all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as did the ICRC. There was discussion of the entire range of legal issues relating to targeted killings in counterterrorism and other operations. In particular, there was consideration of the applicable legal framework regulating the use of armed drones with much attention given to the applicability of international human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL). In this context there was discussion of the substantive legal issues relating to the determination of the applicable legal framework – such as the classification of situations of violence (for the purpose of determining the applicability of IHL) and the extraterritorial application of the right to life. However, perhaps the most significant disagreement between states related to the question of institutional competence for discussing and monitoring compliance with the law. In a divide which appeared to mirror the range of views as to whether norms of human rights or IHL constitute part of, or the main applicable legal framework, some states (like the US, the UK and France) insisted that the Human Rights Council was not an appropriate forum for discussion of the use of armed drones whereas many other states, observers and panellists insisted that the Council was such a forum.

A significant part of the discussion also covered the applicable human rights  and IHL rules that apply to the use of drones. The panellists spoke about the right to life as it might apply to drones; the principles relating to targeting under IHL; and other potentially applicable human rights, such as the right to a remedy.  A key part of the discussion was about accountability with respect to the use of drones. All the panellists spoke about the obligations of states under IHL and human rights law to conduct investigations in cases where there was a credible allegation of violations, as well as the obligations relating to transparency with respect to drone operations. This issue was also raised by a number of states with some seeking examples of best practices that may be employed with respect to disclosure of data relating to drone operations.

A press release summarising the discussion is available here and a video of the entire panel discussion is available on UN Web TV. Christopher Rodgers of the Open Society Foundations has also written an excellent report of the session on Just Security. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will submit a report on this discussion to the Human Rights Council’s 28th regular session which will take place early in 2015. At this point, the matter will return to the Council for further consideration.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Categories

  • Armed Conflict
  • Human Rights
  • Human Rights Council
  • International Humanitarian Law
  • Targeted Killings

    • Tags

    No tags available

    Leave a Comment

    Comments for this post are closed

    Comments

    Jordan says

    October 2, 2014

    Thanks Dapo. I hope that someone pointed out the critical point that in view of the HRC of the ICCPR's Gen. Comm. No. 31, etc., those who have a right to freedom from "arbitrary" killing outside the territory of a targeting state (or territory that it occupies or the equivalent of its territory under international law, like a warship) are those who are in the actual power or effective control of a targeting entity (which would be no one targeted from a drone flying at a high altitude and perhaps no one killed by a future drone that is the size of a grasshopper and flies through a window in some foreign country to target the leader of a terrorist organization engaged in ongoing armed attacks against the targeting state, its embassies abroad, its military, etc.

    Jordan says

    October 3, 2014

    Having checked the summary in the press release, it seems that no one addressed this point about the lack of applicability of ICCPR art. 6 to a person who is not within the actual power or effective control of a state engaged in targeting of that person.
    Moreover, there does not seem to have been any mention of the right to use responsive force in self-defense (or collective self-defense) under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter -- the self-defense paradigm, which is different from both the mere law enforcement paradigm and the law of war paradigm. Clearly, a state can engage in otherwise lawful measures of self-defense outside of the context of war.