Drone warfare and international law Prof. Dr. Tom Ruys 6 February - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Drone warfare and international law Prof. Dr. Tom Ruys 6 February 2014 Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014

Introduction - Unhelpful to speak of drone warfare as if it were governed by a specific normative framework - No one-size-fits-all: Importance of distinguishing between different scenarios Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014

Scenario 1: drone warfare in the context of an IAC/NIAC and within the territory where the actual hostilities are taking place - LOAC paradigm - Relevant norms in theory in practice – no intrinsic problems (pending the advent of fully autonomous drones?) - Specific points of attention in the context of drone warfare? - Precautions? - Weapon of choice – less harmful alternatives? - Involvement of civilian personnel? Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014

Scenario 2: use of drones by a State within its own territory absent a situation of armed conflict - IHRL paradigm – law enforcement scenario - Right to life imposes strict standards on the use of lethal force “ outside the context of armed conflict, the - use of drones for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal ” (P. Alston) Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014

Scenario 3: use of drones outside the context of an armed conflict within the territory of another State that consents - IHRL obligations territorial State - Responsibility of the attacking State � extra-territorial application of IHRL? effective control over territory/control over persons broad reading of ‘effective control’? different treaty rights & customary rights? ‘consent’ as a delegation of ‘public powers’? Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014

Scenario 4: use of drones outside the context of a (pre-existing) armed conflict within the territory of another State that does not consent - First and foremost Jus ad Bellum question - Erosion of the normative framework? - Gravity ‘armed attack’ - Attacks by non-State actors - Self-defence against ‘imminent threats’? - Small-scale attacks outside the scope of Article 2(4) UNCh? - Targeting principles Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014

Scenario 5: use of drones in the context of an armed conflict that ‘spills over’ into the territory of a third State and whereby the latter State consents - No Jus ad Bellum issue - LOAC paradigm applies (cf. Scenario 1) - Key question: what spill-over/nexus? - Only hot battlefield – continuation of hostilities from the territory of a third State - >< LOAC not limited geographically, but follows wherever lawful targets go – idea of a ‘transnational’ armed conflict Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014

Scenario 6: use of drones in the context of an armed conflict that ‘spills over’ into the territory of a third State and whereby the latter State does not consent - First and foremost Jus ad Bellum/law of neutrality issue + application LOAC - Again: what ‘spill-over’/nexus? Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014

Concluding observations - Even if practice is not always compliant, no intrinsic problems under LOAC – no need for a separate legal framework - Relevant legal frameworks (JaB/IHRL/IHL) nonetheless under strain - Geographic boundaries LOAC - Extra-territorial application IHRL - Erosion of the Jus ad Bellum? - Risk of State responsibility for complicity/assistance? - greater transparency + ‘terrorist’ label unhelpful - Winning the war >< securing peace? Drone warfare and international law – Tom Ruys – 6/02/2014