UK Drone Strike on ISIS Raises Legal Questions

!UK strikes iraq-sep-Aug15

UK air and drone strikes in Iraq – a look at the data: dronewars.net

Further clarification is needed on the legal justification for the UK’s drone strike in Syria. Greater transparency is ultimately in the government’s interests.

A US Reaper drone comes in for a touch and go landing during a training programme for pilots. Photo: Rick Loomis/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images.A US Reaper drone comes in for a touch and go landing during a training programme for pilots. Photo: Getty Images.
The UK government has asserted the right of self-defence as the legal justification for its drone strike in Syria, but the application of this and other rules of international law needs further clarification. Greater transparency is also needed, given the change of policy direction and the importance of public and parliamentary confidence in the government’s use of drones.

On 7 September, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a UK drone had killed three members of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Syria, two of whom were British nationals. He stated that there was no other option to protect the UK from imminent armed attacks, and that the attorney general had confirmed that there was a clear legal basis to act. 

The targeting of ISIS fighters in Syria marks a change in direction by the government, which to date has been tackling the terrorism threat to the UK by and large under the criminal justice model – that is, by prosecution and trial. The government justified military action against ISIS in Iraq as being for the collective self-defence of Iraq, and with Iraq’s consent (opens in new window). 

But the widening of UK action against ISIS into Syria requires its own legal justification, which in turn depends on defining the nature of that action. Was the drone attack in Syria an act of self-defence in the face of a threat of imminent attack on the UK – and if so, did it take place within the framework of an ongoing armed conflict against ISIS fighters or was it an action of law enforcement against individuals involved in terrorism? If it was the latter, is it lawful to target individuals in this way?

Self-defence

The criteria governing the right to use force in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter are that the threatened attack is imminent, and that the act of self-defence is both necessary and proportionate. In its letter of 7 September 2015 to the UN Security Council, the government states that these criteria are met.

The exercise of self-defence in this case is not against a state but against an armed group, which brings its own legal difficulties. Although not uncontroversial, an argument can be made that military action against armed groups, without the consent of the state in which they are to be found, is lawful if that state is unable and unwilling to prevent the armed groups attacking other states. But the criteria for self-defence in such a case must be strictly applied. The 2005 Chatham House working paper entitled Principles of International Law on the Use of Force by States in Self-Defence suggests that only in the ‘most compelling emergency’ could it be justified for the threatened state itself to take military action in self-defence before an attack is launched. One of the difficulties in assessing situations like this is that the lawfulness will depend on the evidence. The government will continue to be asked for further information.

An armed conflict or law enforcement?

There seems to be confusion as to whether the UK government regards itself as being in an armed conflict with ISIS. The government’s letter to the Security Council refers to the ongoing armed attacks by ISIS against Iraq, and seems to link the strike to the existence of an armed conflict. However, the prime minister himself stated that ‘this strike was not part of coalition military action against ISIL in Syria’. 

If the strike were part of an existing armed conflict, international humanitarian law would apply, including rules on targeting which permit the killing of fighters in a ‘non-international’ armed conflict. But one military strike in self-defence does not give rise to the intensity of action required to meet the threshold for a non-international armed conflict. For an isolated act of self-defence, only human rights law applies. That law sets a very high threshold before the taking of life can be justified: the threat to others must be immediate (as in a policing operation). It is not unreasonable that human rights law should constrain such actions. No one can expect that governments may kill individuals outside armed conflict without legal regulation.

Greater transparency

The Iraq war left the public, parliament and civil society with a lack of faith in the UK’s use of intelligence as the basis for controversial military actions. The UK’s change of direction against ISIS in Syria has sparked calls from many commentators for greater clarity on the government’s position, and for disclosure of the legal advice it has received.

While the government cannot be expected to release confidential intelligence information, some form of greater transparency on the application of the relevant legal criteria would help to reassure parliament and the public that the assessment process is sound and made in good faith. More transparency in this area could also lessen the likelihood of such attacks encouraging more people to join terrorist groups in the UK or elsewhere. On a broader level, it is important to reassure the public that drones – which are set to become an integral part of the UK’s military capability – are being used within a framework of rigorous scrutiny and established procedures.

There is a range of options for greater transparency that would fall short of disclosing intelligence or the full advice of the attorney general. These include publication of a summary of the legal advice (as with the Iraq war); scrutiny of the decision by a parliamentary body such as the Intelligence and Security Committee; or review by other security-cleared officials such as privy counsellors or the UK’s independent reviewer on counterterrorism, David Anderson QC. Improving public and parliamentary confidence in the legal basis for strikes may also strengthen the government’s hand in any future vote on military action in Syria. 

Harriet Moynihan is Associate Fellow, International Law atChatham House (Royal Inst. of International Affairs)
http://ow.ly/SsXMT 

« What Does Facebook Want With AI?
Russia in Ukraine & Syria: US Revise Cyber Budget »

CyberSecurity Jobsite
Perimeter 81

Directory of Suppliers

NordLayer

NordLayer

NordLayer is an adaptive network access security solution for modern businesses — from the world’s most trusted cybersecurity brand, Nord Security. 

LockLizard

LockLizard

Locklizard provides PDF DRM software that protects PDF documents from unauthorized access and misuse. Share and sell documents securely - prevent document leakage, sharing and piracy.

Jooble

Jooble

Jooble is a job search aggregator operating in 71 countries worldwide. We simplify the job search process by displaying active job ads from major job boards and career sites across the internet.

The PC Support Group

The PC Support Group

A partnership with The PC Support Group delivers improved productivity, reduced costs and protects your business through exceptional IT, telecoms and cybersecurity services.

Clayden Law

Clayden Law

Clayden Law advise global businesses that buy and sell technology products and services. We are experts in information technology, data privacy and cybersecurity law.

Guardtime

Guardtime

Guardtime's Black Lantern platform provides real-time cybersecurity and data-centric asset protection.

SecureKey Technologies

SecureKey Technologies

SecureKey is a leading identity and authentication provider that simplifies consumer access to online services and applications.

Awen Collective

Awen Collective

Awen Collective develops software-based tools for performing Digital Forensics, Incident Response and Cyber-Crime Investigation.

Aricoma

Aricoma

Aricoma are Architects of Digital. We aim to become a major player in end-to-end IT services and digital transformation in Europe.

Cyber Security Africa

Cyber Security Africa

Cyber Security Africa is a full-service Information Security Consulting firm offering a comprehensive range of Services and Products to help organizations protect their valuable assets.

Global Cyber Risk (GCR)

Global Cyber Risk (GCR)

Global Cyber Risk is a technology and advisory services firm that provides first tier cybersecurity services to both large corporations and small and mid-sized businesses.

drie

drie

drie is an end-to-end cloud services company based in Bahrain, Dubai and London. We enable businesses to adopt, scale on and build for cloud.

Pixm

Pixm

Pixm’s computer vision based approach offers a truly unique and effective means to protect organizations from web-based phishing attacks.

Semmle

Semmle

Semmle's code analysis platform helps teams find zero-days and automate variant analysis. Secure your code with continuous security analysis and automated code review.

ImpactQA

ImpactQA

ImpactQA is a global leading software testing & QA consulting company. Ten years of excellence. Delivering unmatched services & digital transformation to SMEs & Fortune 500 companies.

Cirosec

Cirosec

Cirosec is a specialized company with a focus on information security. We carry out pentests & audits and advise our customers in the German-speaking countries on information and IT security issues.

Kiberna

Kiberna

Kiberna are a small but niche company specialising in data driven security to manage your cyber risks.

Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF)

Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF)

OpenSSF is committed to collaboration and working both upstream and with existing communities to advance open source security for all.

Cloud Software Group

Cloud Software Group

Cloud Software Group provides mission-critical software to enterprises at scale.

InfoTrust

InfoTrust

InfoTrust is a leading specialised cybersecurity practice that combines a customer-first consulting approach with next-generation security solutions.