Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overflying Justiciability? Drones and Avoidance Doctrines Before National Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Use and Misuse of New Technologies

  • 1270 Accesses

Abstract

In recent years much research has been dedicated to targeted killing, an issue often considered in relation to the deployment of new technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles.

Quite surprisingly, however, not much attention has been devoted to access to justice for victims of drone strikes. This matter is rapidly gaining momentum as a considerable number of cases have been brought to court by victims of killing by drone in these last years, and many more such cases should be expected to ensue in the near future.

Against this background, this article will show that the great majority of domestic suits related to targeted killing have been dismissed on procedural grounds before ever reaching an adjudication on their merits, mainly as a result of domestic courts’ reliance on non-justiciability theories (or avoidance doctrines). The article will thus unveil that, due to the particular nature and features of drone strikes, the application of avoidance doctrines to cases ensuing from unlawful killing by unmanned aerial vehicles has the effect of leaving victims’ demands for justice absolutely frustrated, thus effectively placing them outside the protection of the law. So that application of traditional theories on justiciability to new lethal practices ensuing from previously unforeseeable technical evolutions makes it possible for States to “kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets”, while segregating victims to “die in the silence of courts”.

Being this the case, the article will look into the specificity of drone strikes from an opposite angle, trying to turn the peculiarities of this weapon platform into a chance to pursue accountability and reparation throughout multiple proceedings in alternative jurisdictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Guidelines on Eradicating Impunity, 30 March 2011, Preamble; Roht-Arriaza (1995), p. 142.

  2. 2.

    In general, on targeted killing see Melzer (2008); Philip Alston, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions—Study on Targeted Killings (hereinafter “Alston Report”), UN Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, 28 May 2010; and Gervasoni (2016).

  3. 3.

    Ghobari and Stewart (2017). According to unofficial investigations, civilian deaths included ten children in addition to an 80 year-old tribal leader, a villager who had already survived a drone strike on his wedding day back in 2013 and a pregnant woman, together with her new-born child. To this end see Reprieve, Game Changer, available at: https://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017_10_31_PRIV-Yemen-Report-UK-Version-FINAL-FOR-USE.pdf.

  4. 4.

    Greenwald (2011).

  5. 5.

    Griffin (2011) and Rushe and McGreal (2011).

  6. 6.

    Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1, Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2010.

  7. 7.

    Al-Aulaqi and Others v. Panetta and Others, Complaint, 18 July 2012.

  8. 8.

    To this end see Gervasoni (2016).

  9. 9.

    Weill (2014), p. 69.

  10. 10.

    Korematsu v. U.S., 65 S. Ct. 193, 245, 1944, Justice Jackson’s Opinion.

  11. 11.

    Benvenisti (1993), p. 161.

  12. 12.

    Weill (2014), p. 69.

  13. 13.

    Bancoult v. McNamara, 726 F.2d 774, 803 n. 8, D.C. Cir. 1984. Accordingly, in relation to the UK doctrines of Crown act of State and Foreign act of State see Scott (2015), p. 1.

  14. 14.

    Significantly, even though throughout this Chapter reference is primarily made to systems of common law, the judiciary of civil law countries are no stranger to similar applications. To this end see, by way of example, the Markovic case before the Italian Court of Cassation (Cass. Civ. SS.UU. 5 June 2002, No. 8157).

  15. 15.

    Weill (2014), pp. 70–71.

  16. 16.

    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom [2002] EWHC 2777. In higher detail on the relationship between the Crown act of State and Foreign act of State doctrines see Mohammed v. Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 843, [375]. On the Foreign act of State doctrine in particular see Nicholson (2015).

  17. 17.

    Mann (1986), p. 187; Hartley and Griffith (1981), pp. 312–316. For an analysis of the doctrine and its evolutions following the most recent UK judgments in the joined appeals in Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence and Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence see Scott (2015), arguing that “both the non-reviewability of the prerogative generally and the specific immunity of the Crown in its own courts have been significantly eroded”.

  18. 18.

    On this matter see extensively Amoroso (2015, 2011).

  19. 19.

    Henkin (1976), p. 597.

  20. 20.

    Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897), 252.

  21. 21.

    Benvenisti (1993) and Benvenisti and Downs (2009).

  22. 22.

    Benvenisti and Downs (2009), p. 60.

  23. 23.

    See respectively Saltany v. Reagan, 886 F.2d 438, DC dr. 1989, and Industrie Panificadora, SA. et al. v. United States, 763 F. Supp. 1154, DDC, 1991, 4T4 957 F.2d 886, DC Or. 1992, Cert denied, 113 S.CL 304; Panama SA. v. United States, 967 F.2d 965, 4th Or. 1992, Cert denied, 113 US 411. Coming to a similar conclusion on the broader issue of access to justice for victims of counterterrorism measures in general see Brown (2011), p. 248.

  24. 24.

    Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1, Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2010.

  25. 25.

    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 2006.

  26. 26.

    Al-Aulaqi v. Obama cit., pp. 65–66 and 70–72.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., p. 78.

  28. 28.

    For a thorough analysis of this judgment see Heller (2011).

  29. 29.

    Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, 35 F. Supp. 3d 56, Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia, 2014.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., pp. 28–32.

  31. 31.

    Ali Jaber v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 3d 70, 73, D.D.C., 2016.

  32. 32.

    Ibid. For a commentary of this decision see Wittes (2011).

  33. 33.

    High Court of Justice, Noor Khan v. Secretary of State [2012] EWHC 3728 (Admin) and Court of Appeal, Noor Khan v. Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 24.

  34. 34.

    High Court of Justice, Noor Khan v. Secretary of State cit., paras. 53–55.

  35. 35.

    Court of Appeal, Noor Khan v. Secretary of State cit., paras. 36–38.

  36. 36.

    UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc. UN Doc. A/RES/60/147, adopted by the UN General Assembly with Resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, Preamble.

  37. 37.

    See, ex multis, Amnesty International, The UN Human Rights Committee’s Proposed General Comment on the Right to Life—Preliminary Observations, 2005, p. 10.

  38. 38.

    See accordingly Verdoot (1963), pp. 116–119.

  39. 39.

    Article 2, para. 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On the scope of application of Article 2, para. 3 see in particular Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 31, 29 March 2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 16. At a regional level, Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 27 of the Protocol to the African Charter for the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

  40. 40.

    UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation cit., Principle 3 (b), (c) and (d). On reparation see Principle 18.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., Principle 3 (b), (c) and (d) and Principle 11. In international jurisprudence see confirmation of this standing, inter alia, in Gülec v. Turkey (App No. 21593/93), ECtHR, judgment of 27 July 1998; Kurt v. Turkey (App No. 24276/94), ECtHR, judgment of 25 May 1998); Velásquez Rodriguez v Honduras (Series C No. 4), IACtHR, judgment of 29 July 1988; Paniagua Morales v. Guatemala (Series C No. 37), IACtHR, judgment of 8 March 1998; Blake v. Guatemala (Series C No. 36), IACtHR, judgment of 24 January 1998.

  42. 42.

    Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 31 cit., para. 16. By the same token see, inter alia, Velasquez Rodrıguez v. Honduras case cit., paras. 166–167 and Velasquez Rodrıguez v. Honduras IACtHR, judgment (reparations) of 21 July 1989, para. 26. Insofar as the ECtHR is concerned, Aksoy v. Turkey (App no 21987/93), ECtHR, judgment of 18 December 1996, para. 98, stating that the notion of an effective remedy entails in addition to compensation a thorough investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and requires the involvement of those whose rights have been violated in the investigatory proceedings. As for the African system, see inter alia, African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in Tunisia, March 1992. In higher detail on the right to reparation see Nowak (2000), pp. 203–204; Shelton (2005), pp. 195, 197, 200.

  43. 43.

    UN Doc. CCPR/C/31/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 8. In higher detail see Clapham (2006), pp. 328–332.

  44. 44.

    Case of Castillo Paéz v. Peru (Series C No. 34), IACtHR, judgment of 3 November 1997, para. 82. See to the same end Loayza Tamayo v. Peru (Series C No. 42), IACtHR, judgment (reparations) of 27 November 1998, para. 169; and Blake v. Guatemala case cit., para. 63. Accordingly Shelton (2005), p. 140. It has been noted that, significantly, the case law of the ECtHR and the IACtHR on the right to an effective remedy is converging in this regard. To this end see Trindade (2011), p. 59.

  45. 45.

    Shelton (2005), p. 238.

  46. 46.

    To this end see, ex multis, Human Rights Committee, Sathasivam v. Sri Lanka, Views of 8 July 2008, para. 6.4; Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia (App. No. 46598/06), ECtHR judgment of 15 January 2009, para. 62; Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, (Series C No. 101) IACtHR, judgment of 25 November 2003, paras. 156-157; Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, (Series C No. 150) IACtHR, judgment of 5 July 2006, para. 66. On this topic see in higher detail Gervasoni (2017). As to the extensive jurisprudence elaborated by the ECtHR in relation to the right to an effective remedy and the ensuing right to reparation see in detail European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on the Democratic Oversight of the Security Services, 11 June 2007 available at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2007/CDL-AD(2007)016-e.asp.

  47. 47.

    Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6, 30 April 1982, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1; see also, ex multis, Kaya v. Turkey (App. No. 22535/1993), ECtHR, judgment of 10 October 2000; McCann and Others v. The United Kingdom (App. No. 18984/91), ECtHR, judgment of 27 September 1995, para. 140; 1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, UN Doc. A/RES/40/34; 1997 Revised Final Report on the Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Violations (Joint Principles), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1; 2005 Updated Principles on Action to Combat Impunity, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1. See, accordingly, Alston (2011), p. 313.

  48. 48.

    Christof Heyns, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions—Armed Drones and the Right to Life, UN Doc. A/68/382, 13 September 2013, para. 95. In higher detail on this matter see Gervasoni (2017).

  49. 49.

    HRC, General Comment No. 29 (2001), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, paras. 14–15.

  50. 50.

    See the separate opinions of judge Cancado Trindade in: The case of Pueblo Bello Massacre (Series C No. 14), IACtHR judgment of 31 January 2006, para. 64; Cases of Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia (Series C No. 148), IACtHR, judgment of 1 July 2006, para. 47; La Cantuta v. Peru (Series C No. 162), IACtHR Judgment of 29 November 2006, paras. 49–62.

  51. 51.

    Article 3 Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Custom of War on Land (adopted on 18 October 1907, entered into force on 26 January 1910).

  52. 52.

    It is worth noticing that the travaux preparatoires of the 1907 Hague Convention IV show that Article 3 was never meant to be restricted to inter-state relationships. On direct individual entitlement to reparation see ICJ, Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, paras 145, 152–3 and ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo Case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Report 2005, p. 82, para. 259. By the same token, Zegveld (2003), pp. 497–526; Kalshoven (1991), pp. 827, 830; Mazzeschi (2003), pp. 339–347.

  53. 53.

    Article 91 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) of 8 June 1977.

  54. 54.

    Kalshoven and Zegveld (2011), p. 147. By the same token see also Bassiouni (2006), p. 217; Bassiouni (2002); Sassoli (1988).

  55. 55.

    Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (hereinafter Geneva Convention I); Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (hereinafter Geneva Convention II); Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereinafter Geneva Convention III); Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (hereinafter Geneva Convention IV), adopted on 12 August 1949, entered into force on 21 October 1950.

  56. 56.

    Ronzitti (2007).

  57. 57.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck (2005), Rule 150. Affirmative, Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary- General, 25 January 2005.

  58. 58.

    AP I, Articles 11, 85 and 87, para. 3; Geneva Conventions I–IV, Articles 1, 50, 51, 130, and 147. By the same token, Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck (2005), Rule 158. To this end see also Gervasoni (2017).

  59. 59.

    Alston (2011), p. 311.

  60. 60.

    To this end see in higher detail Provost (2002), pp. 47–56; Tomuschat (2002a), pp. 178–179.

  61. 61.

    Evans (2012), pp. 37–38.

  62. 62.

    Alston Report cit., para. 93. For a similar conclusion see also Ben Emmerson, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (hereinafter Emmerson Report), UN Doc. A/HRC/25/59, 10 March 2014, para. 32.

  63. 63.

    Alston Report cit., para. 52.

  64. 64.

    Supreme Court of Israel, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel, Judgment of 13 December 2006.

  65. 65.

    Notably, in a previous judgment concerning the legitimacy of a policy of targeted killing the Supreme Court of Israel itself had declared the matter non-justiciable arguing that “The choice of means of warfare, used by the Respondents to pre-empt [sic] murderous terrorist attacks, is not the kind of issue the Court would see fit to intervene in”. To this end see Supreme Court of Israel, Barakeh v. Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, judgment of 29 January 2002. For a thorough commentary to the judgment see Ben-Naftali and Michaeli (2003), p. 369.

  66. 66.

    Supreme Court of Israel, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel cit., para. 54.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., paras. 18–22. The Court made clear, in particular, that when there is a gap in IHL such a lacuna should be filled by reference to human rights law.

  68. 68.

    Evans (2012), pp. 42–43.

  69. 69.

    Trindade (2011), p. 195. See accordingly Barrios Altos v. Peru, IACtHR, judgment of 14 March 2001, and Almonacid Arellano v. Chile, IACtHR, judgment of 26 September 2006.

  70. 70.

    Weill (2014), p. 69.

  71. 71.

    It is significant to point out, in this regard, that also States where avoidance doctrines have developed and thrived remain of the opinion that all States are under the obligation “to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigation into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to identify and bring to justice those responsible, […] and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, to put an end to impunity and to prevent the further occurrence of such execution”. See, to this end, Alston (2011), p. 314, referring to the US practice of calling upon other States to conduct investigations and prosecutions into right to life violations.

  72. 72.

    Accordingly Emmerson Report cit., paras. 33–36.

  73. 73.

    On a functional approach to the obligation to investigate see in higher detail Gervasoni (2017).

  74. 74.

    AP I, Article 43, para.2.

  75. 75.

    Claus Kreß, Aerial Drone Deployment on 4 October 2010 in Mir Ali/Pakistan, (Case No. 3 BJs 7/12-4) Decision to Terminate Proceedings, Germany, Federal Prosecutor General, 23 July 2013, 157 ILR 122, at 758. For a comment on this decision see Daskal (2015).

  76. 76.

    Alston Report cit., para. 71. For a detailed discussion of the different approaches of the German Federal Prosecutor General and that of the UN Special Rapporteur on EJK, leaning towards the latter’s assessment, see Heinsch and Poulopoulou (2017), pp. 77–78. Accordingly see also Vogel (2011), pp. 134–135.

  77. 77.

    To this end see IMT Charter, Article 7 and Control Council Law No. 10, Art. II(4)(a); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Article 7(2); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Article 6(2); Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 27. In national proceedings see Eichmann, 36 ILR at 308-311 (Isr. S. Ct.); Pinochet [1999] 2 All E.R. at 111–115.

  78. 78.

    See to this end Wittes (2009), p. 112; Vermeule (2009), pp. 1132 and 1097.

  79. 79.

    Demiray (2010).

  80. 80.

    Delacroix (2005); for a critique to the decisionist approach see in higher detail Dyzenhaus (2011). On the decisionist theory see Schmitt (2007), arguing that in abnormal situations a need to take decisions in unrolled situations justifies the executive to do so without any supervision.

  81. 81.

    For an analysis of differences and similarities between epistemic authority and decisionism see Rosen (2014).

  82. 82.

    Emphasis added. Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 US 398,423,427 (1963). By the same token, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct 1056, 29 ILM (1990) 441, at 449–450.

  83. 83.

    Haljan (2013), pp. 31–35.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., pp. 47–48.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., p. 60.

  86. 86.

    UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation cit., Principle 2(c). To this end see also International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereinafter ARSIWA), Article 32, as to the “irrelevance of internal law” and HRC, General Comment No. 31 cit., para. 13 as to the shared position of international human rights bodies in this regard. By the same token see, inter alia, the separate opinion of judge Cancado Trindade in Massacre of Pueblo Bello case cit., para. 23.

  87. 87.

    Haljan (2013), p. 14.

  88. 88.

    Christof Heyns, Follow-up to Country Recommendations—United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/22/Add.3, 30 March 2012, para. 88.

  89. 89.

    HRC, Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, 23 April 2014, para. 9.

  90. 90.

    Haljan (2013), pp. 27–31.

  91. 91.

    Ibid.

  92. 92.

    Alston Report cit., para. 60.

  93. 93.

    Emphasis added. Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review—Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, UN Doc. A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, 8 March 2011, para. 14.

  94. 94.

    See accordingly Benvenisti (1993), pp. 173–175.

  95. 95.

    Trindade (2011), pp. 84 and 86: “The judicial power ought to apply the treaty norms in the domestic legal order effectively, and to ensure that they are respected. This means that the national legislature and the judiciary have a duty to provide and apply effective local remedies against violations not only of the rights constitutionally foreseen but also of the rights enshrined in human rights treaties which bind the State at issue”.

  96. 96.

    Scott (2015), p. 3, who argues that such an erosion had already started following the joint appeals in Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence and Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence.

  97. 97.

    Belhaj & Rahmatullah (No 1) v. Straw and Others [2017] UKSC 3, January 2016. On this judgment in higher detail see Simonsen (2017); Gibson (2017), p. 113.

  98. 98.

    To this end see, inter alia, Gibson (2017), pp. 105–106.

  99. 99.

    Cvijic and Klingenberg (2017), p. 40.

  100. 100.

    Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 16, Commentary, para. 8.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., para. 9.

  102. 102.

    Moynihan (2016), p. 8.

  103. 103.

    In higher detail on this case see Gibson (2017), pp. 103–104.

  104. 104.

    El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (App No. 39639/09), ECtHR, Grand Chamber, judgment of 13 December 2011, para. 211; Al Nashiri v. Poland (App No. 28761/11), ECtHR, judgment of 24 July 2014, para. 516; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland (App No. 7511/13), ECtHR, judgment of 24 July 2014, para. 511. HRC, Alzery v. Sweden, Views of 25 October 2006, para. 11.6. For a critical comment of the recalled decisions see Scheinin (2014) and Nollkaemper (2012).

  105. 105.

    Belhaj & Rahmatullah, case cit.

  106. 106.

    Akbar (2017), pp. 95–96.

  107. 107.

    Peshawar High Court, Foundation for Fundamental Rights vs. Federation of Pakistan and Four Others, May 11, 2013.

  108. 108.

    Akbar (2017), pp. 95–96.

  109. 109.

    Keith Hall (2003), p. 111, considering universal jurisdiction “one way of making the right recognized in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration to an effective remedy in national courts”. On the principle of universal jurisdiction see also, inter alia, Wolfrum (1994).

  110. 110.

    ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment of 3 February 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 99.

  111. 111.

    Whereas currently senior sitting officials continue to enjoy qualified immunity (ICJ, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 3, paras. 54–55), the same does not apply to former high officials, including heads of State.

  112. 112.

    Chetail (2003).

  113. 113.

    ICJ, Wall Opinion, case cit. para. 106.

  114. 114.

    Article 36 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted on 23 May 1969, entered in force 27 January 1980).

  115. 115.

    ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of 24 July 1964, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3, para 33.

  116. 116.

    Cassese (2010), p. 416.

  117. 117.

    ICJ, Wall Opinion, case cit., paras. 157 and 158; ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2016, paras. 37 paras. 42, 43 and 48; ICRC, Improving Compliance with IHL, 2004, p. 2.

  118. 118.

    Geneva Convention IV, Article 146. To this end see also the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Preamble, paras. 4–6: “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished […] it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes”. Notably, even though neither the IV 1949 Geneva Conventions nor their 1977 Additional Protocols expressly provide for universal jurisdiction for violations of IHL in non-international armed conflicts, substantial State practice demonstrates that national courts can exercise universal jurisdiction over persons allegedly responsible for such violations. To this end see Keith Hall (2003), pp. 121–122.

  119. 119.

    The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction, Princeton University, 2001, Principle 1.

  120. 120.

    UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation cit., Principles 4 and 5. To this end see also Tomuschat (2002a, b), pp. 315, 325, and 326; Bassiouni and Wise (1995), pp. 21–25 and 51–55, arguing that this principle is paralleled by the evolution of a customary rule to prosecute the most serious human rights violations.

  121. 121.

    UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, 1989, Principle 18; UN Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 2000/31 of 20 April 2000, para. 4. Accordingly see also Keith Hall (2003), p. 118; Ratner et al. (2009), pp. 72 and 87.

  122. 122.

    Ronzitti (2007).

  123. 123.

    Zappalà (2003), p. 219.

  124. 124.

    Alston Report cit., para. 90.

  125. 125.

    Ronzitti (2007).

  126. 126.

    See accordingly Alston (2011), pp. 391–392.

  127. 127.

    See IACtHR, Advisory Opinion of 30 January 1987, paras. 24, 26, 27, 36, 43 and 44.

  128. 128.

    Christof Heyns, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions—Armed Drones and the Right to Life, UN Doc. A/68/382, 13 September 2013, para. 97.

  129. 129.

    Amnesty International, The UN Human Rights Committee’s Proposed General Comment on the Right to Life—Preliminary Observations, London, 2005, p. 35.

  130. 130.

    Alston Report cit., para. 92.

  131. 131.

    Alston (2011), p. 293.

  132. 132.

    Benvenisti (1993), p. 173.

  133. 133.

    Ibid., p. 161.

  134. 134.

    Trindade (2011), p. 194.

  135. 135.

    Ronzitti (2007). Notably, the rare national judgments in the matter of targeted killings which did not make application of avoidance doctrines remain today largely unimplemented in practice. To this end see B’Tselem (2010), pp. 19–20.

References

  • Akbar, Shahzad. 2017. Drones: Beyond the Myths of Precision and Legality. In Litigating Drone Strikes, Challenging the Global Network of Remote Killing, ed. Wolfgang Kaleck and Andreas Schuller, 88–101. Berlin: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, Philip. 2011. The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders. Harvard National Security Journal 2: 283–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amoroso, Daniele. 2011. A Fresh Look at the Issue of Non-justiciability of Defence and Foreign Affairs. Leiden Journal of International Law 23: 933–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Judicial Abdication in Foreign and the Effectiveness of International Law. Chinese Journal of International Law 14: 99–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B’Tselem. 2010. Void of Responsibility: Israel Military Policy Not to Investigate Killings of Palestinians by Soldiers, 19–20. http://www.btselem.org/Download/201009_Void_of_Responsibility_Eng.pdf.

  • Bassiouni, Cherif M. 2002. Accountability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law and Other Serious Violations of Human Rights. In Post Conflict Justice, ed. Cherif M. Bassiouni, 383–442. Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. International Recognition of Victims’ Rights. Human Rights Law Review 6: 203–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni, Cherif, and Edward M. Wise, eds. 1995. Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Naftali, Orna, and Keren R. Michaeli. 2003. Justice-Ability: A Critique of the Alleged Non-justiciability of Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killings. Journal of International Criminal Justice 1: 368–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti, Eyal. 1993. Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law: An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts. European Journal of International Law 4: 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti, Eyal, and George W. Downs. 2009. National Courts, Domestic Democracy, and the Evolution of International Law. European Journal of International Law 20: 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, George D. 2011. Accountability, Liability, and the War on Terror-Constitutional Tort Suits as Truth and Reconciliation Vehicles. Florida Law Review 63: 193–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, Antonio. 2010. The Character of the Violated Obligation. In The Law of International Responsibility, ed. James Crawford, Alain Pellet, and Simon Olleson, 415–420. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetail, Vincent. 2003. The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 85: 235–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, Andrew, ed. 2006. Human Rights Obligations of Non-state Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cvijic, Srdjan, and Lisa Klingenberg. 2017. Armed Drones Policy in the EU: The Growing Need for Clarity. In Litigating Drone Strikes, Challenging the Global Network of Remote Killing, ed. Wolfgang Kaleck and Andreas Schuller, 28–57. Berlin: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daskal, Jennifer. 2015. Germany’s Highest Ranking Prosecutor on the Legality of Drone Strikes – and Much More. Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/24440/germans-highest-ranking-prosecutor-legality-drone-strikes/.

  • Delacroix, Sylvie. 2005. Schmitt’s Critique of Kelsenian Normativism. Ratio Juris 18: 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demiray, Mehmet R. 2010. Schmitt’s Realist Approach to Law and the Pivotal Significance of the Notion of Legitimacy for an Order of Law. Ankara Law Review 7: 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus, David. 2011. Emergency, Liberalism, and the State. Perspective on Politics 9: 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Christine, ed. 2012. The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervasoni, Luca. 2016. Assassination and Targeted Killing in Times of Armed Conflict: A Clash of Theory and Practice. Bicocca Open Archive. https://boa.unimib.it/retrieve/handle/10281/129669/182598/phd_unimib_705717.pdf.

  • ———. 2017. A Contextual-Functional Approach to Investigations into Right to Life Violations in Armed Conflict. Questions of International Law 36: 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghobari, Mohammed, and Phil Stewart. 2017. Commando Dies in US Raid in Yemen, First Military op OK’d by Trump. Reuters, January 29. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-yemen-qaeda/commando-dies-in-u-s-raid-in-yemen-first-military-op-okd-by-trump-idUKKBN15D094.

  • Gibson, Jennifer. 2017. The US’s Covert Drone War and the Search for Answers: Turning to European Courts for Accountability. In Litigating Drone Strikes, Challenging the Global Network of Remote Killing, ed. Wolfgang Kaleck and Andreas Schuller, 102–117. Berlin: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, Glenn. 2011. The Killing of Awlaki’s 16-Year-Old Son. Salon, October 20. https://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/.

  • Griffin, Jennifer. 2011. Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike. Fox News, September 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haljan, David, ed. 2013. Separating Powers: International Law Before National Courts. The Hague: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, Trevor C., and John Aneurin Grey Griffith, eds. 1981. Government and Law: An Introduction to the Working of the Constitution in Britain. London: Widenfeld and Nicolson Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinsch, Robert, and Sofia Poulopoulou. 2017. Difficulties in Prosecuting Drone Strikes as a War Crime Under International Law: An International Humanitarian Law Perspective. In Litigating Drone Strikes, Challenging the Global Network of Remote Killing, ed. Wolfgang Kaleck and Andreas Schuller, 58–87. Berlin: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, Kevin J. 2011. Judge Bates’s Infernal Machine. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159: 183–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Louise Doswald-Beck, eds. 2005. Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin, Louis. 1976. Is There a “Political Question” Doctrine? Yale Law Journal 85: 597–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven, Frits. 1991. State Responsibility for Warlike Acts of the Armed Forces. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 40: 827–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven, Frits, and Liesbeth Zegveld, eds. 2011. Constraints on the Waging of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith Hall, Christopher. 2003. Contemporary Universal Jurisdiction. In Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden, Essays in Honour of Asbjorn Eide, ed. Morten Bergsmo, 111–137. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, F.-A., ed. 1986. Foreign Affairs in English Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzeschi, R. Pisillo. 2003. Reparation Claims by Individuals for State Breaches of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: An Overview. Journal of International Criminal Justice 1: 339–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melzer, Nils, ed. 2008. Targeted Killing in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, Harriet. 2016. Aiding and Assisting: Challenges in Armed Conflict and Counterterrorism. Chatham House Research Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, Matthew. 2015. The Political Unconscious of the English Foreign Act of State and Non-justiciability Doctrine(s). International and Comparative Law Quarterly 64: 743–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper, André. 2012. The ECtHR Finds Macedonia Responsible in Connection with Torture by the CIA, but on What Basis? EJIL:Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-ecthr-finds-macedonia-responsible-in-connection-with-torture-by-the-cia-but-on-what-basis/.

  • Nowak, Manfred. 2000. The Right of Victims of Gross Human Rights Violations to Reparation. In Rendering Justice to the Vulnerable, ed. Fons Coomans, 203–224. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provost, René, ed. 2002. International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, Steven R., et al., eds. 2009. Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law, Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roht-Arriaza, Naomi, ed. 1995. Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronzitti, Natalino. 2007. Access to Justice and Compensation for Violation of the Law of War. In Access to Justice as a Human Right, ed. Francesco Francioni. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Arie. 2014. Two Logics of Authority: Reasons and Fiat in Modern Law. Jean Monnet Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushe, Dominic, and Chris McGreal. 2011. Anwar Al-Awlaki’s Death: US Keeps Role Under Wraps to Manage Yemen Fallout. The Guardian, September 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoli, Marco. 1988. The Victim Oriented Approach of International Humanitarian Law. Victims, nouvelles études pénales: 147–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheinin, Martin. 2014. The ECtHR Finds the US Guilty of Torture – As an Indispensable Third Party? EJIL:Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-ecthr-finds-the-us-guilty-of-torture-as-an-indispensable-third-party/.

  • Schmitt, Carl, ed. 2007. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Paul. 2015. The Vanishing Law of Crown Act of State. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/384044/1/The%2520vanishing%2520law%2520of%2520Crown%2520act%2520of%2520state.pdf .

  • Shelton, Dinah, ed. 2005. Remedies in International Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonsen, Natasha. 2017. The UK Supreme Court’s Blockbuster Decision in Belhaj. EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-uk-supreme-courts-blockbuster-decision-inbelhaj/.

  • Tomuschat, Christian. 2002a. Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 10: 157–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002b. The Duty to Prosecute International Crimes Committed by Individuals. In Tradition un Weltoffenheit des Rechts: Festschrift fur Helmut Steineberger, ed. Hans-Joachim Cremer, Thomas Giergerich, Dagmar Richter, and Andreas Zimmermann. The Hague: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trindade, Antonio A.C., ed. 2011. The Access of Individuals to International Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdoot, Albert, ed. 1963. Naissance et signification de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de Homme. Louvain: Nauwelaerts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeule, Adrian. 2009. Our Schmittian Administrative Law. Harvard Law Review 122: 1098–1149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, Ryan J. 2011. Drone Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 39: 134–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weill, Sharon, ed. 2014. The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittes, Benjamin, ed. 2009. Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror. Washington D.C.: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. No Appeal in Al-Aulaqi. Lawfare. http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/02/no-appeal-in-al-aulaqi/.

  • Wolfrum, Rudiger. 1994. The Decentralized Prosecution of International Offences Through National Courts. Israel Y.B. International Law Journal 24: 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zappalà, Salvatore, ed. 2003. Human Rights in International Criminal Proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zegveld, Liesbeth. 2003. Remedies for Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 85: 497–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    Luca Gervasoni

Authors
  1. Luca Gervasoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Studies in European and International Affairs, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Elena Carpanelli

  2. Department of Legal Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Nicole Lazzerini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gervasoni, L. (2019). Overflying Justiciability? Drones and Avoidance Doctrines Before National Courts. In: Carpanelli, E., Lazzerini, N. (eds) Use and Misuse of New Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05648-3_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05648-3_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05647-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05648-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation