STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TARGETED KILLINGS BY DRONES: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH THE LENS OF IHL PRINCIPLES

Öz

This study analyses whether targeted killing by drones is inherently consistent with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles. Despite its commonly held negative perception, this study contends that targeted killing can align with IHL. This is due to the targeted killing method of drone strikes offering the unique advantage of being in accordance with IHL principles compared to other forms of attacks. However, the use of autonomous drones poses a significant risk to IHL and is likely to violate international obligations. This study discusses that autonomous drones may be unable to analyze data accurately and extract valuable insights. This could cause them to face difficulties in maintaining the necessary balance between civilian harm and anticipated military advantage. As a result, it is argued that autonomous drones are unable to adhere to the IHL principles, particularly the principle of proportionality. The study examines the attribution issue of autonomous drones and proposes that they should be regarded as agents of the State, making their actions attributable to the State.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• targeted killing
• State responsibility
• international humanitarian law
• drone
• IHL principles

İnsansız Hava Araçları Tarafından Gerçekleştirilen Hedef Alarak Öldürmelerde Devlet Sorumluluğu: Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk İlkeleri Merceğinden Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışma, insansız hava araçlarıyla gerçekleştirilen hedef alarak öldürmenin özü itibarıyla Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk (UİH) ilkeleriyle tutarlı olup olmadığını incelemektedir. Yaygın olarak kabul edilen olumsuz algıya rağmen bu çalışma, hedef alarak öldürmenin UİH ile uyumlu olabileceğini ileri sürmektedir. Bunun nedeni, hedef alarak öldürmenin, diğer saldırı türlerine kıyasla UİH ilkelerine uygun olabilme hususunda benzersiz avantajlar sunmasıdır. Ancak otonom insansız hava araçlarının kullanımı UİH açısından önemli bir risk teşkil etmekte ve uluslararası yükümlülükleri ihlal etme riski barındırmaktadır. Bu çalışma, otonom insansız hava araçlarının verileri doğru bir şekilde analiz edemeyebileceğini ele almaktadır. Bu da sivillerin zarar görmesi ile elde edilmesi beklenen askeri avantaj arasında gerekli dengeyi sağlamada zorluklarla karşılaşmalarına neden olabilecektir. Sonuç olarak otonom insansız hava araçlarının UİH ilkelerine, özellikle de orantılılık ilkesine uymadığı ileri sürülmektedir. Çalışma, otonom insansız hava araçlarının eylemlerinin devlete atfedilebilirliği konusunu incelemekte ve bunların Devletin ajanları olarak görülmesi gerekliliği sebebiyle eylemlerinin Devlete atfedilebilir olduğunu önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hedef alarak öldürme
• Devlet sorumluluğu
• uluslararası insancıl hukuk
• insansız hava aracı
• UİH ilkeleri

Kaynakça

1. ‘A/HRC/44/38: Use of Armed Drones for Targeted Killings - Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions’ (OHCHR) accessed 20 July 2023
2. Akerson D, ‘Applying Jus In Bello Proportionality to Drone Warfare’ (2015) 16 Oregon Review of International Law 173
3. Anderson K and Waxman MC, ‘Debating Autonomous Weapon Systems, Their Ethics, and Their Regulation Under International Law’ (28 February 2017) accessed 22 February 2023
4. Andresen J, ‘Challenging the Perplexity over Jus in Bello Proportionality’ 7 European Journal of Legal Studies
5. Barnidge RP, ‘A Qualified Defense of American Drone Attacks in Northwest Pakistan under International Humanitarian Law’ (2012) 30 Boston University International Law Journal 409
6. Beard JM, ‘Autonomous Weapons and Human Responsibilities’ (2013) 45 Georgetown Journal of International Law 617
7. Beaumont P, ‘US Airstrikes Killed at Least 22,000 Civilians since 9/11, Analysis Finds’ The Guardian (7 September 2021) accessed 18 July 2023
8. Blum G and Heymann P, ‘Law and Policy of Targeted Killing’ [2010] Harvard National Security Journal 145

9. Boutin B and Woodcock T, ‘Aspects of Realizing (Meaningful) Human Control: A Legal Perspective’ (11 May 2022) accessed 20 March 2023
10. Boutin DB, ‘Legal Questions Related to the Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems’
11. Buchanan A and Keohane RO, ‘Toward a Drone Accountability Regime’ (2015) 29 Ethics & International Affairs 15
12. Cass K, ‘Autonomous Weapons and Accountability: Seeking Solutions in the Law of War Law of War’ (2014) 48 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1017
13. Chamayou G, A Theory of the Drone (The New Press 2015)
14. Chengeta T, ‘Accountability Gap: Autonomous Weapon Systems and Modes of Responsibility in International Law’ (2016) 45 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 1
15. Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907
16. Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, Paris 13 January 1993
17. Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997
18. Crootof R, ‘War Torts: Accountability for Autonomous Weapons’ (2016) 164 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1347
19. Davison N, ‘A Legal Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law’ in United Nations, UNODA Occasional Papers No. 30, November 2017 (UN 2018) accessed 16 February 2023
20. Department of Defense, United States of America, DoD Directive 3000.09, “Autonomy in Weapon Systems”, January 25 2023
21. Di Nucci E and de Sio FS (eds), Drones and Responsibility: Legal, Philosophical, and Sociotechnical Perspectives on Remotely Controlled Weapons (1st edn, Routledge 2016) accessed 22 February 2023
22. Docherty B, ‘Losing Humanity’ [2012] Human Rights Watch accessed 11 July 2023
23. Drake AM, ‘Current U.S. Air Force Drone Operations and Their Conduct in Compliance with International Humanitarian Law - An Overview’ [2011] Denver Journal of International Law & Policy
24. ‘Drone Wars: The Full Data’ (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (en-GB), 28 October 2017) accessed 18 July 2023
25. ‘Drones in the Nagorno-Karabakh War: Analyzing the Data’ (Military Strategy Magazine) accessed 9 July 2023
26. Fellmeth AX and Horwitz M, Guide to Latin in International Law (Oxford University Press 2009)
27. Fenrick W, ‘The Rule of Proportionality and Protocol in Conventional Warfare’ (1982) 98 Mil L Rev
28. Filkins D, ‘Operators of Drones Are Faulted in Afghan Deaths’ The New York Times (29 May 2010) accessed 16 July 2023
29. Foy J, ‘Autonomous Weapons Systems: Taking the Human out of International Humanitarian Law’ (2014) 23 Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 47
30. Garcia D, ‘Killer Robots: Why the US Should Lead the Ban’ (2015) 6 Global Policy 57
31. Gregory D, ‘From a View to a Kill: Drones and Late Modern War’ (2011) 28 Theory, Culture & Society 188
32. Grut C, ‘The Challenge of Autonomous Lethal Robotics to International Humanitarian Law’ (2013) 18 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 5
33. Gül Y, ‘Drone Attacks and the Principle of Proportionality in the Law of Armed Conflict’ (2021) 0 Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 119
34. ——, ‘The Application of the Principle of Precautions to Cyber Operations’ [2023] SSRN Electronic Journal
35. Hajjar L, ‘Lawfare and Armed Conflict: Comparing Israeli and US Targeted Killing Policies and Challenges Against Them’ [2013] Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs - Research Report
36. Hammond DN, ‘Autonomous Weapons and the Problem of State Accountability Comments’ (2014) 15 Chicago Journal of International Law 652
37. Hampson F, ‘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)
38. Heintschel von Heinegg W, Frau R and Singer T (eds), Dehumanization of Warfare: Legal Implications of New Weapon Technologies (Springer International Publishing 2018) accessed 21 March 2023
39. Henckaerts J-M and others (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press 2005)
40. Heyns C and others, ‘The International Law Framework Regulating the Use of Armed Drones’ (2016) 65 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 791
41. Hogg R, ‘Law, Death and Denial in the “Global War on Terror”’ in Simon Bronitt, Miriam Gani, and Saskia Hufnagel (eds), Shooting to Kill: Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Use of Lethal Force (Bloomsbury Publishing 2012)
42. ‘How Is the Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law? - ICRC’ (14:00:28.0) accessed 19 July 2023
43. ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion [1949] ICJ Rep 174
44. ICRC Guidance on DPH
45. Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, 24 April 1863, prepared by Professor Francis Lieber, University of Columbia (‘Lieber Code’)
46. Kastan B, ‘Autonomous Weapons Systems: A Coming Legal “Singularity”?’ (2013) 2013 University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy 45
47. Khan A, ‘Hidden Pentagon Records Reveal Patterns of Failure in Deadly Airstrikes’ The New York Times (18 December 2021) accessed 16 July 2023
48. Klamberg M, ‘International Law in the Age of Asymmetrical Warfare, Virtual Cockpits and Autonomous Robots’ in Jonas Ebbesson and others (eds), International Law and Changing Perceptions of Security (Brill | Nijhoff 2014) accessed 12 March 2023
49. Klonowska K, ‘Article 36: Review of AI Decision-Support Systems and Other Emerging Technologies of Warfare’ (17 March 2021) accessed 20 March 2023
50. Knoops G-JA, ‘Drones at Trial: State and Individual (Criminal) Liabilities for Drone Attacks’ (2014) 14 International Criminal Law Review 42
51. Krishnan A, Killer Robots: Legality and Ethicality of Autonomous Weapons (Ashgate 2010)
52. ‘Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’ accessed 16 July 2023
53. Lewis MW, ‘Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield’ (2012) 47 Texas International Law Journal 293
54. ‘Mapping US Drone and Islamic Militant Attacks in Pakistan’ BBC News (22 July 2010) accessed 15 July 2023
55. Mayer J, ‘The Predator War’ [2009] The New Yorker accessed 5 August 2023
56. McCrisken T, ‘Obama’s Drone War’ (2013) 55 Survival 97
57. McFarland T and McCormack T, ‘Mind the Gap: Can Developers of Autonomous Weapons Systems Be Liable for War Crimes?’ (2014) 90 Mind the Gap
58. Melzer N, Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford University Press 2008)
59. ——, ‘Targeted Killings in Operational Law Perspective’ in Terry D Gill and Dieter Fleck (eds), The handbook of the international law of military operations (second edition, Oxford University Press 2015)
60. Newton MA, ‘Back to the Future: Reflections on the Advent of Autonomous Weapons System International Regulation of Emerging Military Technologies’ (2015) 47 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 5
61. Nolte G, ‘Targeted Killing’ (Oxford Public International Law) accessed 15 July 2023
62. Noone GP and Noone DC, ‘The Debate over Autonomous Weapons Systems International Regulation of Emerging Military Technologies’ (2015) 47 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 25
63. O’Connell ME, ‘Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004–2009’ in Simon Bronitt, Miriam Gani, and Saskia Hufnagel (eds), Shooting to Kill: Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Use of Lethal Force (Bloomsbury Publishing 2012)
64. Otto R, Targeted Killings and International Law: With Special Regard to Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, vol 230 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2012)
65. Pacholska M, ‘Military Artificial Intelligence and the Principle of Distinction: A State Responsibility Perspective’ (2023) 56 Israel Law Review 3
66. ‘Principle of Distinction | How Does Law Protect in War? - Online Casebook’ accessed 16 July 2023
67. Program On Hpcr At Harvard University, HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare: Prepared for Publication by Program on HPCR at Harvard University (Cambridge University Press 2013) accessed 6 August 2023
68. ‘Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.’ accessed 19 July 2023
69. ‘Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.’ accessed 19 July 2023
70. Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), 13 October 1995
71. Qureshi WA, ‘The Legality and Conduct of Drone Attacks’ (2017) 7 Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 91
72. Ratner SR, Abrams J and Bischoff J, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy (Third Edition, Third Edition, Oxford University Press 2009)
73. Rogers JL, ‘Legal Judgment Day for the Rise of the Machines: A National Approach to Regulating Fully Autonomous Weapons’ (2014) 56 Arizona Law Review 1257
74. Sassòli M, ‘Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical Questions and Legal Issues to Be Clarified’ (2014) 90 International law studies 308
75. Schmitt M, ‘Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A Reply to the Critics’ (2013) 4 Harvard National Security Journal 1
76. Schmitt M, ‘The Principle of Discrimination in 21 Century Warfare’ Yale Hum. Rts. & Dev. LJ 2 (1999)
77. Schulzke M, ‘Autonomous Weapons and Distributed Responsibility’ (2013) 26 Philosophy & Technology 203
78. Sehrawat V, ‘Legal Status of Drones under LOAC and International Law War in the 21st Century and Collected Works’ (2017) 5 Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs 164
79. Seibert-Fohr A, Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations (Oxford University Press 2009)
80. Solis GD, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (Cambridge University Press 2010)
81. Sparrow R, ‘Killer Robots’ (2007) 24 Journal of Applied Philosophy 62
82. ——, ‘Building a Better WarBot: Ethical Issues in the Design of Unmanned Systems for Military Applications’ (2009) 15 Science and Engineering Ethics 169
83. ——, ‘Robots and Respect: Assessing the Case Against Autonomous Weapon Systems’ (2016) 30 Ethics & International Affairs 93
84. Sweney G, ‘Saving Lives: The Principle of Distinction and the Realities of Modern War’ 39
85. Tardif E, ‘A Particularly Dynamic Field of International Law: Recent Developments in the Laws of Armed Conflict’ accessed 15 July 2023
86. ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols - ICRC’ (00:00:00.0) accessed 19 July 2023
87. ‘The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants’ accessed 16 July 2023
88. ‘The War in Ukraine Shows the Game-Changing Effect of Drones Depends on the Game’ accessed 9 July 2023
89. Thomsett MC and Thomsett JF, War and Conflict Quotations: A Worldwide Dictionary of Pronouncements from Military Leaders, Politicians, Philosophers, Writers and Others (McFarland 2015)
90. Thurnher JS, ‘Examining Autonomous Weapon Systems from a Law of Armed Conflict Perspective’ in Hitoshi Nasu and Robert McLaughlin (eds), New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict (TMC Asser Press 2014) accessed 22 February 2023
91. UN Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston
92. UN Doc CCW/GGE.1/2022/CRP.1/Rev.1, Report of the 2022 session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Systems (29 July 2022)
93. United Nations, Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (United Nations) accessed 20 July 2023
94. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress” (Report for American Congress, 21 December 2005) accessed 2 June 2023
95. ‘Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)’
96. ‘Views of the ICRC on Autonomous Weapon Systems’ accessed 11 August 2023
97. Vogel RJ, ‘Drone Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict’ [2010] Denver Journal of International Law & Policy
98. Wagner M, ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’ (Oxford Public International Law) accessed 15 July 2023
99. Walzer M, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (4th ed, Basic Books 2006)
100. ‘World of Drones’ (New America) accessed 16 July 2023
101. Zerbe Y, ‘Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Law: Aspects of International Humanitarian Law, Individual Accountability and State Responsibility’ (2019) 29 Swiss Review of International and European Law 581