Drone Attacks and the Principle of Proportionality in the Law of Armed Conflict

Abstract

Technology has developed significantly in the past few decades; obligations on belligerent parties, however, have not changed. One of these obligations is to respect the principle of proportionality while conducting attacks against lawful targets. For this reason, whilst military advantage can be gained through drone attacks, those attacks must not result in excessive harm inflicted upon civilian lives and properties. Also, belligerent parties should take all feasible precautions in order to minimize collateral damage and always take Human Rights Law into consideration even if the particular drone attack is lawful according to the Law of Armed Conflict.

Keywords

• Law of Armed Conflict
• principle of proportionality
• drone attacks
• excessive
• collateral damage

Siha Saldırıları ve Silahlı Çatışma Hukukunda Orantılılık İlkesi

Abstract

Teknoloji, son birkaç on yılda önemli ölçüde gelişti, ancak savaşan tarafların yükümlülükleri değişmedi. Bu yükümlülüklerden biri de meşru hedeflere yönelik saldırılar düzenlerken orantılılık ilkesine riayet etmektir. Bu nedenle her ne kadar askeri avantajın SİHA saldırıları ile kazanılması mümkün olsa da bu saldırılar sonucu sivillerin canlarına ve mallarına yönelik aşırı zararlara yol açılmamalıdır. Ayrıca savaşan taraflar, tali zararı en aza indirebilmek için mümkün olan bütün önlemleri almalı ve belirli bir SİHA saldırısı her ne kadar Silahlı Çatışma Hukuku’na uygun olsa da İnsan Hakları Hukuku’nu da her zaman dikkate almalıdırlar.

Keywords

• Silahlı Çatışma Hukuku
• orantılılık ilkesi
• SİHA saldırıları
• aşırı
• tali hasar

References

1. ‘Declaration (IV,1), to Prohibit, for the Term of Five Years, the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, and Other Methods of Similar Nature. The Hague, 29 July 1899.’ accessed 30 January 2020.
2. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3
3. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 609
4. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (entered into force 2 December 1983) 1342 UNTS 168, 19 ILM 1529, as amended 3 May 1996, 35 ILM 1206
5. HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare (Bern, 15 May 2009)
6. Alejandre et al. v Cuba Case No. 11.589 (IACiHR 29 September 1999)
7. Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v The United Kingdom App no. 61498/08 (ECtHR 30 June 2009)
8. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) (Judgment) [2015] ICJ Rep 3

9. Bankovic and others v Belgium and 16 other Contracting States App No. 52207/99 (ECtHR 12 December 2001)
10. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 168
11. Hassan v United Kingdom App no 29750/09 (ECtHR 16 September 2014)
12. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136
13. Isayeva v Russia App no 57950/00 (ECtHR 24 February 2005)
14. Loizidou v Turkey App no. 15318/89 (ECtHR 23 March 1995)
15. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Judgment) [1984] ICJ Rep 392
16. Prosecutor v Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic (Judgement) ICTY-96-23 & ICTY-96-23/1-A (12 June 2002)
17. Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) ICTY-94-1 (2 October 1995)
18. Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Judgment) ICTY-94-1-T (7 May 1997)
19. Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Appeal Judgement) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999)
20. Prosecutor v Germain Katanga (Judgement pursuant to article 74 of the Statute) ICC- 01/04-01/07 (7 March 2014)
21. Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu (Trial Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 September 1998)
22. Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/05-01/08 (21 March 2016)
23. Prosecutor v Stanislav Galic (Trial Judgement) ICTY-98-29-T (5 December 2003)
24. Prosecutor v Zoran Kupreskic and others (Judgement) ICTY-95-16-T (14 January 2000)
25. Commission E-EC, Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims-Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-13, 14, 21, 25 & 26 (Partial Award of 2005) UNHRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, Addendum, Study on Targeted Killings, UN Doc. A/HRC/ 14/24/Add.6, (May 28, 2010)
26. Akerson D, ‘Applying Jus in Bello Proportionally to Drone Warfare’ (2014) 16 Oregon Review of International Law 173
27. Andreson J, ‘Challenging the Perplexity over Jus in Bello Proportionality’ (2014) 7 European Journal of Legal Studies 19
28. Barber RJ, ‘The Proportionality Equation: Balancing Military Objectives with Civilian Lives in the Armed Conflict in Afghanistan’ (2010) 15 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 467
29. Bartels R, ‘Dealing with the Principle of Proportionality in Armed Conflict in Retrospect: The Application of the Principle in International Criminal Trials’ (2013) 46 Israel Law Review 271
30. Blank LR, ‘A New Twist on an Old Story: Lawfare and the Mixing of Proportionalities’ (2010) 43 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 707
31. Borelli S, ‘The (Mis)-Use of General Principles of Law: Lex Specialis and the Relationship Between International Human Rights Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict’, General Principles of Law-The Role of the Judiciary (Springer 2015)
32. Commentary on the HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare (Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University 2010)
33. Commission E-EC, Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims-Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-13, 14, 21, 25 & 26 (Partial Award of 2005)
34. Cotter M, ‘Military Necessity, Proportionality and Dual-Use Objects at the ICTY: A Close Reading of the Prlić et al. Proceedings on the Destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar’ (2018) 23 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 283
35. Dinstein Y, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (Cambridge University Press 2004)
36. Doswald-Beck L (ed), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Cambridge University Press 1995)
37. E. W. P, ‘Developing and Integrating Unmanned Systems for Military Operations’ in Ronan Doaré and others (eds), Robots on the Battlefield Contemporary Perspectives and Implications for the Future (Combat Studies Institute Press 2014)
38. Else RC, ‘Proportionality in the Law of Armed Conflict: The Proper Unit of Analysis for Military Operations’ (2010) 5 University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy 195
39. ‘Expert Meeting “Targeting Military Objectives”’ (University Centre for International Humanitarian Law 2005)
40. Fenrick WJ, ‘The Rule of Proportionality and Protocol I in Conventional Warfare’ (1982) 98 Military Law Review 91
41. ——, ‘Targeting and Proportionality during the NATO Bombing Campaign against Yugoslavia’ (2001) 12 European Journal of International Law 489
42. ——, ‘Applying IHL Targeting Rules to Practical Situations: Proportionality and Military Objectives’ (2009) 27 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 271
43. Gettinger D, The Drone Databook (The Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College 2019)
44. Gisel L, ‘The Rules Governing the Conduct of Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law’ (ICRC and Université Laval 2016) International Expert Meeting Report
45. Hampson FJ, ‘The Principle of Proportionality in the Law of Armed Conflict’ in S Perrigo and J Whitman (eds), The Geneva Conventions Under Assault (Pluto Press 2010)
46. Hampson FJ and Dinstein Y, ‘Proportionality and Necessity in the Gulf Conflict’ (1992) 86 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 45
47. Heller KJ, ‘“One Hell of a Killing Machine” Signature Strikes and International Law’ (2013) 11 Journal of International Criminal Justice 89
48. Henckaerts J-M and Doswald-Beck L (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press 2005)
49. Henderson I, The Contemporary Law of Targeting : Military Objectives, Proportionality, and Precautions in Attack under Additional Protocol I (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009)
50. International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (Cambridge University Press 2016)
51. ——, Commentary on the Second Geneva Convention: Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Cambridge University Press 2017)
52. International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century, ‘The Conduct of Hostilities and International Humanitarian Law: Challenges of 21st Century Warfare’ (2017) 93 International Law Studies 323
53. Joint Targeting School Student Guide (Joint Targeting School 2017)
54. Markham C and Schmitt M, ‘Precision Air Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict’ (2013) 89 International Law Studies 669
55. Melzer N, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (International Committee of the Red Cross 2009) ——, Human Rights Implications of the Usage of Drones and Unmanned Robots in Warfare (European Parliament 2013)
56. O’Connell ME, ‘Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-2009’ (Social Science Research Network 2009) accessed 5 May 2020
57. Rogers APV, Law on the Battlefield (Manchester University Press 1996)
58. Sandoz Y, Swinarski C and Zimmermann B (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (ICRC 1987)
59. Schmitt MN, ‘Drone Attacks under the Jus Ad Bellum And Jus in Bello: Clearing the “Fog of Law”’ in MN Schmitt, Louise Arimatsu and T McCormack (eds), Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2010, vol 13 (T M C Asser Press 2011) ——, ‘Air Warfare’ in Andrew Clapham and Paola Gaeta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Online 2014)
60. Schmitt MN and Thurnher JS, ‘Out of the Loop: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict’ (2013) 4 Harvard National Security Journal 231
61. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Operational Law Handbook (2015)
62. UK Ministry of Defence, The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre 2004)
63. ——, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre 2017)
64. US Department of Defence, Law of War Manual (2015)
65. US Department of the Army, Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5
66. Wells-Greco M, ‘Operation “Cast Lead”: Jus in Bello Proportionality’ (2010) 57 Netherlands International Law Review 397
67. ‘Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia | International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ < https://www.icty.org/x/file/Press/nato061300.pdf> accessed 5 May 2020
68. O’Connell ME, ‘Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-2009’ (Social Science Research Network 2009) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1501144 accessed 1 January 2020