UN launches inquiry into drone killings

[hellheaven1987]

The UN is launching an inquiry into the impact on civilians of drone strikes and other targeted killings.

There is a need for "accountability and reparation where things have gone badly wrong", the British lawyer heading the investigation told journalists.

Ben Emmerson QC, a UN special rapporteur, said the "exponential" rise of drone technology required a proper legal framework to be put into place.

The inquiry will study the impact of drone strikes in five places.

Twenty-five attacks will be examined - in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Palestinian territories and Somalia.

Mr Emmerson told journalists in London that the increasing use of drones "represents a real challenge to the framework of international law".

If unregulated, he said, the use of drones would continue to grow.

The inquiry will assess the extent of civilian casualties, the identity of militants targeted and the legality of strikes where there is no UN recognition of a conflict.

Defenders of drones say they minimise civilian casualties, but opponents say drone strikes can constitute extra-judicial killing and point to data suggesting hundreds of civilians have died in such strikes.

Drones - or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) - have become an increasingly potent weapon for nations seeking to target militants but there is increasing controversy over their toll on civilians.

Between 2004 and 2013, CIA drone attacks in Pakistan killed up to 3,461 people - up to 891 of them civilians, according to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The vast majority of the strikes were carried out under the administration of President Barack Obama, it said.

Some kinds of drone attacks - in particular "double tap" strikes where rescuers attending a first blast become victims of a second - could constitute a war crime, Mr Emmerson has previously said, according to the Guardian newspaper.

Addressing journalists on Thursday, he denied the inquiry was unfairly singling out the US and Israel, saying 51 states had the technology to use drones.

He said it was not a substitute for "effective, official and independent investigation" by states, and called for independent investigations where there was "plausible evidence of a war crime".

The inquiry will report to the UN General Assembly in the latter half of the year.

Source

A great news indeed. Consider the increasing use of drones for military purpose it is definitely time to exam and set up international laws to prevent abuse of drone operations.

[Menelik_I]

Funny that the USA has made the use of drones in US Airspace legal ... it would be a shame if something happened to our UN commission.

[hellheaven1987]

Watch out UN, this may come soon.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[s.rwitt]

I still don't get why stupid people think that drones need to be treated any different than air strikes.

Oh, yeah, it's because they're stupid.

[Vanoi]

I still don't get why stupid people think that drones need to be treated any different than air strikes.

Oh, yeah, it's because they're stupid.

Exactly. Why don't these drone strikes already fall under international law?

[Rights of the Individual]

I still don't get why stupid people think that drones need to be treated any different than air strikes.

Oh, yeah, it's because they're stupid.

It's not that they're different than airstrikes, but that the concept of using US hardware in a sovereign nation's territory without a declaration of war is wrong.

[Slaytaninc]

It's not that they're different than airstrikes, but that the concept of using US hardware in a sovereign nation's territory without a declaration of war is wrong.

Yes, and we did the same with airstrikes. So I STILL don't get why we're treating them differently.

[Rights of the Individual]

Yes, and we did the same with airstrikes. So I STILL don't get why we're treating them differently.

The UN is retarded. That's why they're treating them differently.

Not when this country is supporting the very people the US is fighting against.

Also, Pakistan allows the drones to fly in their territory.

So then we should declare war against them and stop sending billions in "foreign aid".

[Vanoi]

So then we should declare war against them and stop sending billions in "foreign aid".

Oh i agree about the stop sending aid part, but we still need them. Supplies are brought in through Pakistan.

The US also doesn't want to see a nuclear power becoming un-stabilized.

[Vanoi]

It's not that they're different than airstrikes, but that the concept of using US hardware in a sovereign nation's territory without a declaration of war is wrong.

Not when this country is supporting the very people the US is fighting against.

Also, Pakistan allows the drones to fly in their territory.

[justicar5]

I still don't get why stupid people think that drones need to be treated any different than air strikes.

Oh, yeah, it's because they're stupid.

The QC was interviewed and his remit is broader than just drone strikes, and does include air strikes, specifically on the soil of a state that is not a party to the conflict.

[Dr Zoidberg]

I still don't get why stupid people think that drones need to be treated any different than air strikes.

Oh, yeah, it's because they're stupid.

It's because they're drones, r.witt. DRONES! DRROOONNNESSS!

Don't you get it!? This is how it starts! First drones, then SKYNET becoming self aware! Before you know it, cats and dogs will be living together!

[Plan C]

I still don't get why stupid people think that drones need to be treated any different than air strikes.

Oh, yeah, it's because they're stupid.

I suppose that's because they are far more expedient than air strikes.

What the UN is trying to do, I should imagine, is catch a falling knife - we know that drone tech is not a secret and many a government are likely to start using them imminently, some already do. What the inquiry is saying is this: "guys, can we please get some ground rules in place now for the legality of using drones before everybody's got them and uses them according to their own set of rules". In other words, USG is politely requested to impose some kind of a denominator to it's own use of drones such that we can bind all users by a common set of rules.

I suppose it's trying to tell USG to change the "do as we say, not as we do" approach to world policing.

[Strattios]

I still find it funny that the UN still talks tough when no one really listens to them anymore. I mean they just said the the UK should give the Falklands back to Argentina. And look where that went. Them deciding laws on Drone use wont change much as the nations that do and will use them do so mainly for "covert" operations. They use them in areas where they cant get troops, meaning areas where conflict is more complex than an open battlefield. There is no reason to believe they will start following regulations set up by a stateless entity that has nothing to lose should these nations not be able to do what they feel they need to do.

I think the focus should be within the Drone using nations not to use it to either spy on or attack personnel within their own borders. As far as it goes between nations, it will be some type of new diplomatic relation such as the Cold War era spies and assassins.

As to why they don't fall under international law, its because they evolved out of covert spying missions. Putting regulations on them simply means that you will just hear less about them and there will be more cover ups trying to explain them away. You only hear about them a lot now because it is a new technology that allows its users to act without putting their own people in harms way, something that has long been sought after in warfare.

[s.rwitt]

Except they are and have been all along. I know you've seen the Wikileaks document in which Pakistani leadership talks about their complicity in the strikes.

So then we should declare war against them and stop sending billions in "foreign aid".

We're not at war with Pakistan.

[Thorn777]

Except they are and have been all along. I know you've seen the Wikileaks document in which Pakistani leadership talks about their complicity in the strikes.



We're not at war with Pakistan.

Its always great when a population has a govt secretly given agreement to another country to dish out hellfire rockets upon them.

That way the population can only and moan about invincible virginia guy on joystick.

Sounds legit.

[s.rwitt]

So then why are we bombing them? This is essentially the modern-day cambodia during the Vietnam war.

FFS was this a serious question?

-------------

It's because they're drones, r.witt. DRONES! DRROOONNNESSS!

Don't you get it!? This is how it starts! First drones, then SKYNET becoming self aware! Before you know it, cats and dogs will be living together!

The Army has automated drones. We're already ed.

[conon394]

What the UN is trying to do, I should imagine, is catch a falling knife - we know that drone tech is not a secret and many a government are likely to start using them imminently, some already do. What the inquiry is saying is this: "guys, can we please get some ground rules in place now for the legality of using drones before everybody's got them and uses them according to their own set of rules". In other words, USG is politely requested to impose some kind of a denominator to it's own use of drones such that we can bind all users by a common set of rules.

I still don't see the need... To the extent they are used by a miltary they are just smaller cheaper airplanes. Used by Intelligence agencies they exist in grey area that really is beyond what states sign and depends on what they decide they need to - does it really matter if the CIA or the Mossad puts a bullet in the head of some enemy or uses a car bomb or a drone its an assassination and likely to happen anyway.

It countries don't like them they - Yeman could shoot them down or Pakistan... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident

Used internally that an internal matter for Sovereign governments

Where is the need for new rules?

[Plan C]

I still don't see the need... To the extent they are used by a miltary they are just smaller cheaper airplanes. Used by Intelligence agencies they exist in grey area that really is beyond what states sign and depends on what they decide they need to - does it really matter if the CIA or the Mossad puts a bullet in the head of some enemy or uses a car bomb or a drone its an assassination and likely to happen anyway.

It countries don't like them they - Yeman could shoot them down or Pakistan... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident

Used internally that an internal matter for Sovereign governments

Where is the need for new rules?

I know. Vast majority of rules on the use of drones will be unenforceable anyway, either because the countries using them are so powerful they practically own the rules, or because they are so beyond the pale that UN rules do not apply anyway.

Certainly, drones can be shot down and any government which has not sanctioned its use by a foreign power within its airspace can legitimately shoot them down. Or can it? I think what UN is trying to establish is more nuanced questions - is shooting drones down within one's airspace an act of war, for example? Is use of drones considered a covert operation or is it governed by a distinct set of rules altogether (open military conflict)? What of unarmed, spying drones? What of drones which can potentially be purposefully crashed in foreign land to spread airborne disease etc. etc.

Remember, those guys are highly paid and they need stuff to do. UN is very hit-and-miss, some of the stuff they do makes a lot of sense, some is just utter tripe. I guess time will tell which category "drone law" occupies.

[Slaytaninc]

Well, covert operations are covert because they are illegal.

If the rules prevented these things from being done openly and be more common than they are, then I could see a use for adding them. But if the current rules already force these to be covert, what's the need for adding new ones that will be ignored anyways?