Skip to main content

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Drones at War: The Military Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and International Law

verfasst von : Claudia Candelmo

Erschienen in: Use and Misuse of New Technologies

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in the military field has become an issue of increasing concern in the international community. As practice grows (notably, due to the frequent use of such equipment in various countries, either involved or not in armed conflicts), so does case law on its contentious aspects. In this respect, the concept of “border” is of paramount importance, both in its physical meaning (territorial border of the State) and in its legal sense (delimitation of the area where sovereignty is exercised and other States’ intrusion is prevented). Against this background, the Chapter examines the responsibility of the State for cross-border activities, in connection with the use of remotely piloted drones in light of three bodies of international law: the law governing the use of force, in relation to the concept of territorial borders and sovereignty of States; international human rights law, as regards the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties; and international humanitarian law, with particular reference to the law of neutrality and the evolving concept of “battlefield” during an armed conflict.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
Cf., ex multis, International Bar Association (2017); Alberstadt (2014), pp. 221–232; Bergen and Rothenberg (2014); Brooks (2013), pp. 83–104; Colacino (2015), pp. 607–629; Knuckey (2014), MacNab and Matthews (2010), pp. 661–694; O’Connell (2010), pp. 585–600; Qureshi (2017), pp. 91–106; Sharkey (2011), pp. 140–154; Valavanis and Vachtsevanos George (2015).
 
2
Although the term “war” is still used at times, especially in the political discourse, the term “armed conflict” replaced it in most international law instruments, because it identifies more precisely a substantial situation as opposed to a formal one. In fact, while the term “war” is usually linked to the existence of a “state of war” declared or accepted between the parties, the term “armed conflict” simply describes the existence of hostilities between two or more States, regardless of the existence of a declaration of war. Cf., on this issue, Crawford (2015).
 
3
See Wagner (2014).
 
4
Ibid.
 
5
Sehrawat (2017), p. 171.
 
6
O’Connell (2010).
 
7
Targeted killings are intended as the use of lethal force with the intent to kill individually selected persons, who are not in the physical custody of those who target them. See, on the definition of “targeted killing”, Melzer (2008), p. 5. The United States have greatly relied on targeted killings in the framework of the war on terror and in the fight against the so-called Islamic State, through strikes carried out in many Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, but also Libya and Syria. See, on this point, the figures recalled by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, in his 2017 Report, para. 29. Cf. also Brookman-Byrne (2017), p. 4.
 
8
Heyns et al. (2016).
 
9
Or, more broadly, fulfilling the conditions that regulate the lawful use of force under international law.
 
10
Cf. Articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, Pt. 2, 2001, especially Article 20, which also sets the limits of operations carried out after consent has been given.
 
11
Strikes carried out by the United States provide some relevant examples of transnational use of drones, especially with reference to the events involving Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen since 2001. Growing practice includes strikes implemented by the United Kingdom since 2015 in Syria in the fight against the so-called Islamic State and its fighters. On some occasions, also the Pakistani army has used drones within its own territory, but it can be said that the widest practice that has caused more legal debate is that of drones employed internationally.
 
12
Given the general prohibition of the use of force, codified in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.
 
13
This principle is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which refers to “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs […]”. On self-defense as inherent right, cf. Kretzmer (2013).
 
14
In both cases, however, the requirements for the lawful implementation of the use of force must be respected, and the use of force cannot exceed the limits set by the law. The UN Security Council may give authorization to use force against a State under Article 42 of the UN Charter, which enables the UN to take measures involving the use of force in case of a threat to international peace and security.
 
15
In particular, cf. Paust (2010), p. 249 ff.
 
16
Requiring consent for the lawful resort to force in case of an attack perpetrated directly by a State would basically impair the right of self-defense, because it would render the response impossible, absent consent of the attacking State.
 
17
Unless it can be demonstrated that a violation of the obligation of prevention or any other kind of acquiescence has been made and, even in that case, the responsibility of the State will be for its own violation and not for the armed attack perpetrated by non-state armed groups.
 
18
Reference here is made to the potential limitation of State sovereignty in case of protection of human rights deriving from the growing importance of international human rights bodies, which monitor the implementation by States of human rights treaties.
 
19
Cf. Articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, Article 20.
 
20
Ibid.
 
21
See General Comment No. 36, which, at para. 26, recalls the duty of States parties to take appropriate measures to protect individuals against deprivations of life by other States that operate within their territory.
 
22
It should be noted that the validity of the consent given by Pakistani authorities was disputed by the findings of the Peshawar High Court in the case 1551-P/2012, of 11 April 2013, which requested the US to stop drone strikes within the airspace and territory of Pakistan and to provide compensation for the loss caused through previous strikes (para. VII). The legal basis put forward by the US, that is the consent given by General Musharraf, was also contested as being unsupported by relevant written documentation. Pakistan decided to openly deny its consent to US strikes in the same year.
 
23
Brookman-Byrne (2017), pp. 21 and 31.
 
24
This assumption does not exclude the possibility that a State gives its consent in an oral form, for example in a public declaration made by an official of the Government, or that consent is deduced from the material behavior of the State (facta concludentia). Cf., on the issue of consent, Colacino (2015), p. 626, Bethlehem (2012) and Hollis (2005).
 
25
On the problem of inability and unwillingness, see Corten (2016) and Deeks (2012).
 
26
See on this debate, among the others, Tams (2009), Lubell (2010) and Paust (2010).
 
27
Tams (2009).
 
28
ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.
 
29
On the point, cf. Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 168. Cf., in particular, the separate opinions rendered by Judges Kooijmans and Simma in this case (ICJ Reports, 2005, paras. 306–326 and 334–350).
 
30
Letter dated 25 June 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (S/2014/440, 25 June 2014) and letter dated 20 September 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2014/651, 22 September 2014).
 
31
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that an absolute prohibition to respond to an armed group operating from the territory of the State, without the State’s direct involvement, would make the attacked State substantially blocked to respond to attacks involving the use of force, unless the UN Security Council authorizes it.
 
32
Frau (2013).
 
33
Such right is recognized, inter alia, by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, at Article 6.
 
34
Cf. Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom (App. No. 55721/07), ECtHR [GC], Judgment of 7 July 2011; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (App. No. 52207/99), ECtHR [GC], Judgment of 19 December 2001.
 
35
On this issue, see Ryngaert (2012) and De Sena (2002).
 
36
ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136, para. 109; Coard et al. v. United States, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Report n. 109/99, 29 September 1999, para. 37. Extensive case law has been rendered by the ECtHR, among which cf. Al-Skeini and others v. United Kingdom cit., para. 109 ff.; Loizidou v. Turkey (App. n. 15318/89), ECtHR [GC], Judgment 18 December 1996; Case of Ilaşcu and others v. Moldova and Russia (App. No. 48787/99), ECtHR [GC], Judgment of 8 July 2004, para. 392.
 
37
This is without prejudice to the responsibility in which the territorial State where the drone strike is carried out may incur for human rights violations. In fact, even if the territorial State has given its consent to the strike, the strike itself does not become automatically lawful under a human rights perspective.
 
38
Although it is generally presumed that internal matters come within the jurisdiction of the State, there may be cases where the State is not in control or cannot exercise authority on a given portion of its territory. In that case, the ascertainment of jurisdiction may require further examination.
 
39
For the purposes of the establishment of jurisdiction, one of the leading cases in regional jurisprudence is Loizidou v. Turkey cit.
 
40
Al-Skeini v. the United Kingdom cit., paras. 149–150, where the ECtHR ascertained that the United Kingdom exercised authority and control over individuals in the course of security operations. This was sufficient to establish a jurisdictional link between those who had lost their lives in the course of such operations and the United Kingdom, for the purposes of Article 1 of the ECHR. More recent case law on the matter includes Jaloud v. the Netherlands (App. No. 47708/08), ECtHR [GC], Judgment 20 November 2014, which goes so far as to establish jurisdiction over individuals passing through a checkpoint managed by personnel under the command of the Netherlands Royal Army.
 
41
Cf., in particular, Hassan v. The United Kingdom (App. No. 29750/09), ECtHR [GC], Judgment 16 September 2014, and Jaloud v. The Netherlands cit.
 
42
See supra footnote No. 28.
 
43
Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 29 March 2004, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 1326, para. 10, which does not refer to territorial control, but to jurisdiction on “those within the power or effective control of the forces of a State Party acting outside its territory, regardless of the circumstances in which such power or effective control was obtained”.
 
44
On this aspect see Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Government’s policy on the use of drones for targeted killing. Second report of session 2015–2016, paras. 3.58–3.59. https://​publications.​parliament.​uk/​pa/​jt201516/​jtselect/​jtrights/​574/​574.​pdf. Accessed 3 January 2018.
 
45
As remarked by General Comment No. 36.
 
46
See the latest draft of the General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life, para. 26, available online at http://​www.​ohchr.​org/​EN/​HRBodies/​CCPR/​Pages/​GC36-Article6Righttol​ife.​aspx.
 
47
Ibid., para. 66, which clarifies the importance to ensure that the right to life of individuals impacted by military or other activities, in a significant and foreseeable manner, is duly protected.
 
48
Milanovic (2011) and Melzer (2008).
 
49
Cf. Al-Saadoon and others v. Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWHC 715 and Al-Saadoon and others v. Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWCA Civ. 811.
 
50
Cf. on this aspect Human Rights Committee, Delia Saldias de Lopez v. Uruguay, Communication No. 52/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, para. 88 (1984). Cf. also Issa and others v. Turkey (App. No 31821/96), ECtHR, Judgment of 16 November 2004, para. 171. In this respect, targeting groups or individuals that are hit by drone strikes during law enforcement operations at the domestic level would fall within the jurisdiction of the State and, therefore, the conduct will likely be considered a violation of relevant human rights norms, unless the strike was motivated by the absolute necessity to protect life. However, this view does not imply that the State has automatically identical obligations both nationally and extraterritorially.
 
51
On the application of IHL and drones, cf. Foy (2014) and Lewis and Crawford (2013). On contemporary legal challenges under IHL, cf. Lubell (2017), Gill and Fleck (2010), and Paulus and Vashakmadze (2009).
 
52
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the field of 12 August 1949; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea of 12 August 1949; Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war of 12 August 1949; Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war of 12 August 1949, all entered into force on 21 October 1950.
 
53
Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Tadić (IT-94-1-A), Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995 (“Tadić Decision on Interlocutory Appeal”), para. 70.
 
54
Article 1, para 1 of the 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, states that the Protocol applies to all armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party “between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol”. Paragraph 2 of the same Article excludes the application of the Protocol to situations of internal disturbances and tensions that cannot amount to armed conflicts.
 
55
Article 3 obliges the Parties to the conflict (be it of an international or of a non-international nature) to apply minimum provisions of humanity to protect vulnerable categories and personal dignity of individuals, prohibiting humiliating and degrading treatments.
 
56
Ronzitti (2012), p. 563.
 
57
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and, in particular, the provisions regulating the straits used for international navigation, affirms that the overfly of these areas is not prohibited in times of armed conflict (see Articles 34 ff., especially Article 38, regulating the right of transit passage in international straits).
 
58
Gioia (2006), pp. 188–189. See in particular The Hague Convention V, of 1907, Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, entered into force on 26 January 1910, especially Article 1, which protects as “inviolable” the territory of neutral Powers.
 
59
Ronzitti (2012), p. 563.
 
60
Gioia (2006), p. 188. Schmitt (2010), p. 318. In particular, the neutral State has a duty of prevention against acts that may constitute a violation of its neutrality.
 
61
Provided that all acts of aggressions are prohibited per se, the strike would be unlawful under the jus ad bellum framework, if it was intended as an act of aggression against another State and not as a measure of self-defense.
 
62
International Institute of Humanitarian Law (1995).
 
63
Ibid., para. 23.
 
64
The commentary attached to the San Remo Manual does not define further what is the exact meaning of “neutral international strait”. However, as the commentary explains (para. 23.1, pp. 102–103 of the San Remo Manual), the proposed formulation of para. 23 was initially less detailed but clarified that while the possibility to exercise the right of transit passage in neutral international straits is granted, it is forbidden to carry out any hostile act in “neutral waters comprising an international straits”, where the meaning of neutral waters can be understood as territorial waters of a neutral Power.
 
65
Ibid., paras. 24–25.
 
66
UNCLOS, Article 38, para 2.
 
67
Lewis (2012).
 
68
In particular, Article 33, para. 4, of Additional Protocol II.
 
69
Lubell and Derejko (2013), pp. 73–74.
 
70
Ibid., p. 66.
 
71
On the numerous examples of recent and contemporary non-international armed conflicts, see Lubell and Derejko (2013), pp. 70–71; Blank (2010), p. 3.
 
72
Heyns et al. (2016), p. 793.
 
73
As remarked by UN Security Council Resolution 1373, too. See, on the point, UN Doc. S/RES/1373 (2001), in particular the fourth paragraph of the preamble.
 
74
Article 1(1) of Protocol II.
 
75
Ibid. See also Saul (2014), p. 218 and Article 1(2) of Additional Protocol II, which excludes the application of the Protocol to situations of internal disturbances tensions and isolated or “sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts”.
 
76
Ibid.
 
77
In fact, it should be borne in mind that, while IHRL applies in times of peace, that is when no armed conflict is taking place, IHL applies exclusively in times of armed conflict. However, if IHL does not apply, it will be IHRL norms to protect individuals and their rights internationally recognized, although in times of armed conflict IHRL does not cease to be applicable simply because IHL applies. Furthermore, some basic rights are always protected, no matter the existence of an armed conflict, as recalled by Article 3, common to all four Geneva Conventions, which states that “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples”. On the interplay between the application of IHL and IHRL, cf. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 226, and Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, para. 136.
 
78
Cf. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, cit., para. 106.
 
79
Ibid.
 
80
Borelli (2015), pp. 273–274.
 
81
Brookman-Byrne (2017), p. 5.
 
82
ICTY, Tadić Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, para. 70.
 
83
Lubell and Derejko (2013), pp. 86–87.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Alberstadt, Rachel. 2014. Drones Under International Law. Open Journal of Political Science 4: 221–232.CrossRef Alberstadt, Rachel. 2014. Drones Under International Law. Open Journal of Political Science 4: 221–232.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bergen, Peter L., and Daniel Rothenberg. 2014. Drone Wars. Transforming Conflict, Law and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Bergen, Peter L., and Daniel Rothenberg. 2014. Drone Wars. Transforming Conflict, Law and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bethlehem, Daniel. 2012. Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors. The American Journal of International Law 106: 769–777. Bethlehem, Daniel. 2012. Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors. The American Journal of International Law 106: 769–777.
Zurück zum Zitat Blank, Laurie R. 2010. Defining the Battlefield in Contemporary Conflict and Counterterrorism: Understanding the Parameters of the Zone of Combat. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 39: 1–38. Blank, Laurie R. 2010. Defining the Battlefield in Contemporary Conflict and Counterterrorism: Understanding the Parameters of the Zone of Combat. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 39: 1–38.
Zurück zum Zitat Borelli, Silvia. 2015. The (Mis)-Use of General Principles of Law: Lex Specialis and the Relationship Between International Human Rights Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict. In General Principles of Law – The Role of the Judiciary, ed. Laura Pineschi, 265–293. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef Borelli, Silvia. 2015. The (Mis)-Use of General Principles of Law: Lex Specialis and the Relationship Between International Human Rights Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict. In General Principles of Law – The Role of the Judiciary, ed. Laura Pineschi, 265–293. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brookman-Byrne, Max. 2017. Drone Use ‘Outside Areas of Active Hostilities’: An Examination of the Legal Paradigms Governing US Covert Remote Strikes. Netherlands International Law Review 64: 3–41.CrossRef Brookman-Byrne, Max. 2017. Drone Use ‘Outside Areas of Active Hostilities’: An Examination of the Legal Paradigms Governing US Covert Remote Strikes. Netherlands International Law Review 64: 3–41.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brooks, Rosa. 2013. Drones and the International Rule of Law. Ethics & International Affairs 28: 83–103.CrossRef Brooks, Rosa. 2013. Drones and the International Rule of Law. Ethics & International Affairs 28: 83–103.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Colacino, Nicola. 2015. From Just War to Permanent Self-defense: The Use of Drones in Counterterrorism and its Questionable Consistency with International Law Standards. Ordine internazionale e diritti umani 4: 607–629. Colacino, Nicola. 2015. From Just War to Permanent Self-defense: The Use of Drones in Counterterrorism and its Questionable Consistency with International Law Standards. Ordine internazionale e diritti umani 4: 607–629.
Zurück zum Zitat Corten, Olivier. 2016. The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test: Has it Been, and Could it be, Accepted? Leiden Journal of International Law 29: 777–799.CrossRef Corten, Olivier. 2016. The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test: Has it Been, and Could it be, Accepted? Leiden Journal of International Law 29: 777–799.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat De Sena, Pasquale. 2002. La nozione di giurisdizione statale nei trattati sui diritti dell’uomo. Torino: Giappichelli. De Sena, Pasquale. 2002. La nozione di giurisdizione statale nei trattati sui diritti dell’uomo. Torino: Giappichelli.
Zurück zum Zitat Deeks, Ashley. 2012. ‘Unwilling or Unable’: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense. Virginia Journal of International Law 51: 483–550. Deeks, Ashley. 2012. ‘Unwilling or Unable’: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense. Virginia Journal of International Law 51: 483–550.
Zurück zum Zitat Foy, James. 2014. Autonomous Weapons Systems: Taking the Human Out of International Humanitarian Law. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 23: 47–70. Foy, James. 2014. Autonomous Weapons Systems: Taking the Human Out of International Humanitarian Law. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 23: 47–70.
Zurück zum Zitat Frau, Robert. 2013. Unmanned Military Systems and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Law. Groningen Journal of International Law 1: 1–18.CrossRef Frau, Robert. 2013. Unmanned Military Systems and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Law. Groningen Journal of International Law 1: 1–18.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gill T. D., and Fleck Dieter. 2010. The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gill T. D., and Fleck Dieter. 2010. The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Gioia, Andrea. 2006. Neutrality in Air Warfare. In The Law of Air Warfare. Contemporary Issues, ed. Natalino Ronzitti and Gabriella Venturini, 181–223. Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing. Gioia, Andrea. 2006. Neutrality in Air Warfare. In The Law of Air Warfare. Contemporary Issues, ed. Natalino Ronzitti and Gabriella Venturini, 181–223. Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing.
Zurück zum Zitat Heyns, Christof, Dapo Akande, Lawrence Hill-Cawtorne, and Thompson Chengeta. 2016. The International Law Framework Regulating the Use of Armed Drones. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 65: 791–827.CrossRef Heyns, Christof, Dapo Akande, Lawrence Hill-Cawtorne, and Thompson Chengeta. 2016. The International Law Framework Regulating the Use of Armed Drones. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 65: 791–827.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hollis, Duncan B. 2005. Why State Consent Still Matters – Non-State Actors, Treaties, and the Changing Sources of International Law. Berkeley Journal of International Law 23: 137–174. Hollis, Duncan B. 2005. Why State Consent Still Matters – Non-State Actors, Treaties, and the Changing Sources of International Law. Berkeley Journal of International Law 23: 137–174.
Zurück zum Zitat International Institute of Humanitarian Law. 1995. In San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, ed. Louise Doswald-Beck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. International Institute of Humanitarian Law. 1995. In San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, ed. Louise Doswald-Beck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Knuckey, Sarah, ed. 2014. Drones and Targeted Killings. Ethics, Law and Politics. New York: IDEBATE Press. Knuckey, Sarah, ed. 2014. Drones and Targeted Killings. Ethics, Law and Politics. New York: IDEBATE Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Kretzmer, David. 2013. The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum. The European Journal of International Law 24: 235–282.CrossRef Kretzmer, David. 2013. The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum. The European Journal of International Law 24: 235–282.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lewis, Michael. 2012. Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield. Texas International Law Journal 47: 293–314. Lewis, Michael. 2012. Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield. Texas International Law Journal 47: 293–314.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewis, Michael, and Emily Crawford. 2013. Drones and Distinction: How IHL Encouraged the Rise of Drones. Georgetown Journal of International Law 44: 1127–1166. Lewis, Michael, and Emily Crawford. 2013. Drones and Distinction: How IHL Encouraged the Rise of Drones. Georgetown Journal of International Law 44: 1127–1166.
Zurück zum Zitat Lubell, Noam. 2010. Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Lubell, Noam. 2010. Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2017. Fragmented Wars: Multi-Territorial Military Operations against Armed Groups. International Law Studies 93: 216–250. ———. 2017. Fragmented Wars: Multi-Territorial Military Operations against Armed Groups. International Law Studies 93: 216–250.
Zurück zum Zitat Lubell, Noam, and Nathan Derejko. 2013. A Global Battlefield? Drones and the Geographical Scope of Armed Conflict. Journal of International Criminal Justice 11: 65–88.CrossRef Lubell, Noam, and Nathan Derejko. 2013. A Global Battlefield? Drones and the Geographical Scope of Armed Conflict. Journal of International Criminal Justice 11: 65–88.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat MacNab, Molly, and Megan Matthews. 2010. Clarifying the Law Relating to Unmanned Drones and the Use of Force: The Relationship Between Human Rights, Self-defense, Armed Conflict, and International Humanitarian Law. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 39: 661–694. MacNab, Molly, and Megan Matthews. 2010. Clarifying the Law Relating to Unmanned Drones and the Use of Force: The Relationship Between Human Rights, Self-defense, Armed Conflict, and International Humanitarian Law. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 39: 661–694.
Zurück zum Zitat Melzer, Nils. 2008. Targeted Killing in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Melzer, Nils. 2008. Targeted Killing in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Milanovic, Marko. 2011. Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties. Law, Principles and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Milanovic, Marko. 2011. Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties. Law, Principles and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat O’Connell, Mary Ellen. 2010. The International Law of Drones. American Society of International Law Insights 37. O’Connell, Mary Ellen. 2010. The International Law of Drones. American Society of International Law Insights 37.
Zurück zum Zitat Paulus, Andreas, and Mindia Vashakmadze. 2009. Asymmetrical War and the Notion of Armed Conflict – A Tentative Conceptualization. International Review of the Red Cross 91: 95–125.CrossRef Paulus, Andreas, and Mindia Vashakmadze. 2009. Asymmetrical War and the Notion of Armed Conflict – A Tentative Conceptualization. International Review of the Red Cross 91: 95–125.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Paust, Jordan. 2010. Self-defense Targetings of Non-state Actors and Permissibility of U.S. Use of Drones in Pakistan. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 19: 237–280. Paust, Jordan. 2010. Self-defense Targetings of Non-state Actors and Permissibility of U.S. Use of Drones in Pakistan. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 19: 237–280.
Zurück zum Zitat Qureshi, Waseem Ahmad. 2017. The Legality and Conduct of Drone Attacks. Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 7: 91–106. Qureshi, Waseem Ahmad. 2017. The Legality and Conduct of Drone Attacks. Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 7: 91–106.
Zurück zum Zitat Ronzitti, Natalino. 2012. Modern Means of Warfare: The Need to Rely Upon International Humanitarian Law, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Law to Achieve a Decent Regulation of Weapons. In Realizing Utopia. The Future of International Law, ed. Antonio Cassese, 553–595. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Ronzitti, Natalino. 2012. Modern Means of Warfare: The Need to Rely Upon International Humanitarian Law, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Law to Achieve a Decent Regulation of Weapons. In Realizing Utopia. The Future of International Law, ed. Antonio Cassese, 553–595. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ryngaert, Cedric. 2012. Clarifying the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights. Merkourios. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 28: 57–60.CrossRef Ryngaert, Cedric. 2012. Clarifying the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights. Merkourios. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 28: 57–60.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Saul, Ben. 2014. Terrorism and International Humanitarian Law. In Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism, ed. Ben Saul, 208–231. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Saul, Ben. 2014. Terrorism and International Humanitarian Law. In Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism, ed. Ben Saul, 208–231. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Zurück zum Zitat Schmitt, Michael N. 2010. Drone Attacks under the Jus ad Bellum And Jus in Bello: Clearing the ‘Fog of Law’. International Yearbook of Humanitarian Law 13: 311–326.CrossRef Schmitt, Michael N. 2010. Drone Attacks under the Jus ad Bellum And Jus in Bello: Clearing the ‘Fog of Law’. International Yearbook of Humanitarian Law 13: 311–326.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sehrawat, Vivek. 2017. Legal Status of Drones Under LOAC and International Law. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 5: 164–206. Sehrawat, Vivek. 2017. Legal Status of Drones Under LOAC and International Law. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 5: 164–206.
Zurück zum Zitat Sharkey, Noel. 2011. Automating Warfare: Lessons Learned from the Drones. Journal of Law, Information & Science 21: 140–154.CrossRef Sharkey, Noel. 2011. Automating Warfare: Lessons Learned from the Drones. Journal of Law, Information & Science 21: 140–154.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tams, Christian J. 2009. The Use of Force Against Terrorists. The European Journal of International Law 20: 359–397.CrossRef Tams, Christian J. 2009. The Use of Force Against Terrorists. The European Journal of International Law 20: 359–397.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Valavanis, Kimon P., and J. Vachtsevanos George, eds. 2015. Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Dordrecht: Springer. Valavanis, Kimon P., and J. Vachtsevanos George, eds. 2015. Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Dordrecht: Springer.
Metadaten
Titel
Drones at War: The Military Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and International Law
verfasst von
Claudia Candelmo
Copyright-Jahr
2019
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05648-3_5