Vol. 16, Issue 1, Jul-Dec 2023

Page: 14-24

Remote Drones Between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law

Dr. Baqer Musa Saeed AL_khafagy

Received Date: 2020-07-01

Accepted Date: 2020-08-05

Published Date: 2020-08-14

Wars and military operations in our present time have ended up more digital, using modern-day generation, and the tendency of most of the world's powers to lessen using the human detail. it's far taken into consideration one of the most lethal guns of all kinds and sizes and its supernatural potential to carry out large duties, which simplest need a small amount of human manage, and it can be something negligible in a few instances, and these aircraft are used as advanced guns in various varieties of worldwide armed conflicts, together with global, specially counter-terrorism operations, due to its highquality capability to reduce distances, terrain, tracking operations and targeting accuracy at the desired time, further to its potential to carry various and different guns, which created issues about the overlap in the regulation regulating targeting operations, among international humanitarian regulation One aspect and among international human rights regulation then again, and the capability of these weapons and people in rate of directing them to abide by the rules of these two legal guidelines and what's branching out From them there are multiple and intertwined guidelines, which made the states' positions in struggle with these debatable plane, some of them went inside the direction of supporting the safety of the drone operator in the first region, and a number of them oppose and notice in it a weapon that possesses the extremely good lethality that makes it inconsistent with international legal policies and every route its arguments on this difference.

Back Download PDF

References

• Ahmed Al-Ibrahim, Unmanned Aircraft System, Aviation for All Magazine, 2015, First Year, Issue 6.
• Haider Abd Ali and Zainab Jabbour, The Principle of Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law, Al Mohaqiq Al Hilli Journal for Legal and Political Sciences, 2016, Year Eight, Issue 2.
• Report of Ben Emerson, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, United Nations, General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, 9/18/2013, Document A / 68/389.
• The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, United Nations, General Assembly, Sixtieth Resolution, 9/8/2006, Sixtieth Session A / RES / 60/158.
• Resolution for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Context of Combating Terrorism, United Nations, General Assembly, Resolution No. 60/158, Sixtieth Session / 16/12/2005, A / RES / 60/158.
• The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.
• The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984.
• The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, 1977.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
• European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.
• Nils Melzer, Human Rights Implications Of The Usage Of Drones And Unmanned Robots In Warfare, European Parliament, Directorate-General For External Policies Of The Union,2013, ISBN;978-823-4390-6.
• Erik Roxstrom and others, The NATO Bombing Case And the limits of western human Rights Protection, Boston University International Law Journal,2005,
• Grant H. Frazier, Armed Drones: An Age-Old Problem Exacerbated by New Technology, Claremont Colleges, Pomona Collge 2016.
• Interpretive Guidance On the Notion Of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, Adopted by The Assembly Of The International Committee Of The Red Cross, 2009.
• Laurie R. Blank, After'Top Gun' How Drone Strikes The Law Impact The Law Of War, the University Of Pennsylvania Journal Of International Law,2012.
• Brookman-Byrne, M. (2017). Drone Use ‘Outside Areas of Active Hostilities’: An Examination of the Legal Paradigms Governing US Covert Remote Strikes. Netherlands International Law Review, 64(1), 3-41.
• Casey-Maslen, S. (2012). Pandora's box? Drone strikes under jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and international human rights law. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 597-625.
• Anderson, K. (2009). Targeted killing in US counterterrorism strategy and law.
• Brunstetter, D. R., & Jimenez-Bacardi, A. (2015). Clashing over drones: The legal and normative gap between the United States and the human rights community. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(2), 176-198.
• Brunstetter, D. R., & Jimenez-Bacardi, A. (2015). Clashing over drones: The legal and normative gap between the United States and the human rights community. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(2), 176-198.
• Otto, R. (2011). Targeted killings and international law: with special regard to human rights and international humanitarian law (Vol. 230). Springer Science & Business Media.
• Wuschka, S. (2011). The Use of Combat Drones in Current Conflicts-A Legal Issues or a Political Problem. Goettingen J. Int'l L., 3, 891.
• Sterio, M. (2012). The United States' use of drones in the War on Terror: the (il) legality of targeted killings under international law. Case W. Res. J. Int'l L., 45, 197.
• Drake, A. M. (2010). Current US Air Force Drone Operations and Their Conduct in Compliance with International Humanitarian Law-An Overview. Dev. J. Int'l L. & Poly, 39, 629.
• Wagner, M. (2014). The dehumanization of international humanitarian law: legal, ethical, and political implications of autonomous weapon systems. Vand. J. Transnat'l L., 47, 1371.
• Takemura, H. (2014). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Humanization from International Humanitarian Law. Wis. Int'l LJ, 32, 521.