Print
See related documents
Resolution 2051 (2015)
Drones and targeted killings: the need to uphold human rights and international law
1. The Parliamentary Assembly considers
that the use of armed drones for targeted killings raises serious questions
in terms of human rights and other branches of international law.
2. The Assembly notes that several member States and States enjoying
observer status with the Council of Europe or the Parliamentary
Assembly have used combat drones as weapons of war or for carrying
out targeted killings of people suspected of belonging to terrorist
groups in a number of countries, including Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Somalia and Yemen.
3. Several Council of Europe member States have purchased combat
drones or are considering doing so, or have shared intelligence
with States using combat drones for targeted killings, thus assisting
them in carrying out drone attacks. Furthermore, the United States
of America is provided with transmission stations in the territories
of Council of Europe member States that play an indispensable role
in the execution of drone attacks.
4. Armed drones allow for the carrying out of attacks remotely,
without placing the attacker’s own personnel at risk of injury or
capture. The ability of drones equipped with powerful sensors to
loiter over a potential target for some time enables the decision
on launching a strike to be based on particularly precise and up-to-date information.
These advantages have contributed to lowering the threshold for
intervention and increasing the number of drone strikes in recent
years. At the same time, the increased precision of drone strikes
provides the opportunity to improve compliance with international
humanitarian and human rights law.
5. The Assembly is alarmed at the high number of lethal drone
attacks, which have also caused considerable unintended collateral
damage to non-combatants, in contrast with the “surgical” nature
of such strikes claimed by those launching them. The constant fear
of drone attacks engendered by strikes hitting schools, weddings
and tribal assemblies has disrupted the life of traditional societies
in the countries of operation.
6. Drone strikes raise serious legal issues, which differ depending
on the circumstances in which the strikes are launched:
6.1. national sovereignty and the
respect for territorial integrity under international law forbid
military interventions of any kind on the territory of another State
without valid authorisation by the legitimate representatives of
the State concerned. Military or intelligence officials of the State
concerned tolerating or even authorising such interventions without
the approval or against the will of the State’s representatives
(in particular the national parliament) cannot legitimise an attack;
exceptions from the duty to respect national sovereignty can arise
from the principle of the “responsibility to protect” (for example
in the fight against the terrorist group known as “IS”), in accordance
with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international
law;
6.2. under international humanitarian law, which applies in
situations of armed conflict, only combatants are legitimate targets.
In addition, the use of lethal force must be militarily necessary
and proportionate and reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent
mistakes and minimise harm to civilians;
6.3. under international human rights law, which generally
applies in peacetime, but whose application has permeated also into
situations of armed conflict, an intentional killing by State agents
is only legal if it is required to protect human life and there
are no other means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation,
of preventing that threat to human life;
6.4. in particular, under Article 2 – Right to life – of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5), as interpreted
by the European Court of Human Rights, the deprivation of the right
to life can only be justified if absolutely necessary for the safeguarding
of the lives of others or the protection of others from unlawful
violence. Article 2 also requires timely, full and effective investigations
to hold to account those responsible for any wrongdoing;
6.5. in order to justify a wider use of targeted killings,
the concept of “non-international armed conflict” has been extended
by some countries so as to include numerous regions across the world
as “battlespaces” of the “global war on terror”. This threatens
to blur the line between armed conflict and law enforcement, to
the detriment of the protection of human rights.
7. Despite some recent progress due to successful court challenges,
in particular by the American media, attacks by combat drones are
still largely shrouded in secrecy. This relates to both the actual
outcome of individual attacks, including the extent of any collateral
damage, and the decision-making process for targeting individuals
and balancing potential harm to non-combatants.
8. The Assembly calls on all member and observer States, as well
as States whose parliaments have observer status with the Assembly,
to:
8.1. scrupulously respect the
limits placed on targeted killings under international law and international
humanitarian and human rights law, in particular with respect to
the use of combat drones;
8.2. lay down clear procedures for authorising strikes, which
must be subject to constant supervision by a high-level court and
ex post evaluation by an independent body;
8.3. avoid broadening the concept of “non-international armed
conflict” by continuing to respect established criteria, including
the requisite degree of organisation of non-State groups and a certain degree
of intensity and localisation of violence. Also, US drone strikes
facilitated by transmission co-operation on the territory of member
States must be investigated by the member States themselves, so as
to ensure compliance with Article 2 of the European Convention on
Human Rights;
8.4. fully and effectively investigate all deaths caused by
armed drones in order to hold to account those responsible for any
wrongdoing and to compensate any victims of wrongful attacks or
their relatives;
8.5. publish the criteria and procedures used for targeting
individuals and the results of the investigations carried out into
deaths caused by the use of combat drones;
8.6. refrain from using, or providing intelligence information
or other input for:
8.6.1. any automated (robotic) procedures
for targeting individuals based on communication patterns or other
data collected through mass surveillance techniques;
8.6.2. “signature strikes” not based on the precise identification
of a targeted person, but on the target’s pattern of behaviour (except
in situations of armed conflict, provided the rules of international
humanitarian law are respected);
8.6.3. “double-tap strikes”, involving a second strike targeting
first responders (for example persons providing medical assistance
to the victims of a first strike).
9. The Assembly urges the Secretary General of the Council of
Europe to initiate a procedure under Article 52 – Inquiries by the
Secretary General – of the European Convention on Human Rights to
request information on the manner in which State Parties implement
the provisions of the Convention concerning the right to life, with
particular reference to their own drone weaponising programmes,
and their co-operation with American programmes through the sharing
of information, and the facilitation of targeted killings by drones.