This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/09/syria-drone-strike-raqqa-british-jihadis-low-threshold-killing-people-un

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Syria drone strike sets low threshold for killing people, says UN official Syria drone strike sets low threshold for killing people, says UN official
(about 7 hours later)
The RAF drone strike on British jihadis in Syria lowers the legal threshold for killing people worldwide and sets a dangerous precedent, a United Nations official has warned.The RAF drone strike on British jihadis in Syria lowers the legal threshold for killing people worldwide and sets a dangerous precedent, a United Nations official has warned.
In a scathing critique of the military operation over the city of Raqqa last month, Prof Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said the attack was of great concern.In a scathing critique of the military operation over the city of Raqqa last month, Prof Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said the attack was of great concern.
Heyns, who is also a law professor at the University of Pretoria, told the Guardian: “An important threshold is being crossed. Let’s be clear, it is not illegal to use armed drones in an armed conflict against legitimate targets under the laws of war. But what we have here is a targeted killing based on a very open ended justification – there is a continuing but not an imminent threat – and because there is no opportunity to arrest, deadly force is used.Heyns, who is also a law professor at the University of Pretoria, told the Guardian: “An important threshold is being crossed. Let’s be clear, it is not illegal to use armed drones in an armed conflict against legitimate targets under the laws of war. But what we have here is a targeted killing based on a very open ended justification – there is a continuing but not an imminent threat – and because there is no opportunity to arrest, deadly force is used.
Related: Syria drone strike: former DPP questions legal justificationRelated: Syria drone strike: former DPP questions legal justification
“The justifications of the use of force on the territory of another state and that during law enforcement are mixed, resulting in a very low threshold for killing people worldwide. If this is permissible in Syria, it must be permissible anywhere else – and for any government. This is the dangerous route of the global war on terror.”“The justifications of the use of force on the territory of another state and that during law enforcement are mixed, resulting in a very low threshold for killing people worldwide. If this is permissible in Syria, it must be permissible anywhere else – and for any government. This is the dangerous route of the global war on terror.”
Hans Corell, a former senior legal counsel at the UN who is writing a report on the use of drones, also expressed misgivings about carrying out lethal attacks by drones outside open warfare. Hans Corell, a former senior legal counsel at the UN who is writing a report on the use of drones, also expressed misgivings about carrying out lethal drone attacks outside open warfare.
While stating that he could not comment on the specific Syrian attack, he said: “The moment you start using drones outside a battlefield that is a problem. If you go outside a battlefield and identify a terrorist suspect and fire a missile to kill someone, I’m concerned that can be murder.”While stating that he could not comment on the specific Syrian attack, he said: “The moment you start using drones outside a battlefield that is a problem. If you go outside a battlefield and identify a terrorist suspect and fire a missile to kill someone, I’m concerned that can be murder.”
But Dr William Boothby, a retired RAF air commodore and a lawyer once responsible for ensuring that newly acquired weapons conform to the UK’s international humanitarian law obligations, said he believed the killings in Raqqa were legal.But Dr William Boothby, a retired RAF air commodore and a lawyer once responsible for ensuring that newly acquired weapons conform to the UK’s international humanitarian law obligations, said he believed the killings in Raqqa were legal.
He said: “Action in self defence under the UN charter, article 51, is permissible if an armed attack occurs, but arguably article 51 is not the last word on the matter - there is an inherent right of states to act in self-defence that may go wider than article 51. He said: “Action in self-defence under the UN charter, article 51, is permissible if an armed attack occurs, but arguably article 51 is not the last word on the matter – there is an inherent right of states to act in self-defence that may go wider than article 51.
“It is also widely recognised as being permissible to use force in self-defence if an armed attack is imminent. The law is not clear as to the precise degree of death, injury or damage that is necessary to qualify as an armed attack, but states will take into account a number of factors including the severity of the event, the nature of the event, the immediacy of the consequences, the military character of the event and the involvement of a state in the putative armed attack.“It is also widely recognised as being permissible to use force in self-defence if an armed attack is imminent. The law is not clear as to the precise degree of death, injury or damage that is necessary to qualify as an armed attack, but states will take into account a number of factors including the severity of the event, the nature of the event, the immediacy of the consequences, the military character of the event and the involvement of a state in the putative armed attack.
“I have little doubt that the prime minister’s and secretary of state’s appreciation of the severity of what was being planned will have comfortably satisfied them and the attorney general that the criteria of an armed attack would have been satisfied had the plan been carried out. That seems to have been implicit in what the prime minister said in the House of Commons.“I have little doubt that the prime minister’s and secretary of state’s appreciation of the severity of what was being planned will have comfortably satisfied them and the attorney general that the criteria of an armed attack would have been satisfied had the plan been carried out. That seems to have been implicit in what the prime minister said in the House of Commons.
Related: Drone killing of British citizens in Syria marks major departure for UKRelated: Drone killing of British citizens in Syria marks major departure for UK
“A state doesn’t have to wait until an armed attack actually hits. Imminence really means, in my view, that a state can use force in self-defence if it is the last window of opportunity to act [before the armed attack will be launched].”“A state doesn’t have to wait until an armed attack actually hits. Imminence really means, in my view, that a state can use force in self-defence if it is the last window of opportunity to act [before the armed attack will be launched].”
Boothby added: “The fact that the action was taken in Syria, on the territory of another sovereign country, may cause some to question its legitimacy as I guess no permission was sought from the Syrian authorities. If the action was taken on territory not in the exclusive control of the Syrian government, that might be some sort of answer to the objection. Equally, we do not know what communications there may have been ‘beneath the diplomatic cloak’, as it were.”Boothby added: “The fact that the action was taken in Syria, on the territory of another sovereign country, may cause some to question its legitimacy as I guess no permission was sought from the Syrian authorities. If the action was taken on territory not in the exclusive control of the Syrian government, that might be some sort of answer to the objection. Equally, we do not know what communications there may have been ‘beneath the diplomatic cloak’, as it were.”
Downing Street has insisted that the right to self-defence, under Article 51, is a universally accepted right in international law, entitling a state to take the necessary and proportionate measures to prevent an imminent armed attack.Downing Street has insisted that the right to self-defence, under Article 51, is a universally accepted right in international law, entitling a state to take the necessary and proportionate measures to prevent an imminent armed attack.