Skip to main content

Access to an Effective Remedy and Reparations for Civilian Victims of Armed Drone Strikes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Drone Use

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 27))

  • 4039 Accesses

Abstract

In the international arena there are some encouraging developments in relation to accountability and transparency for the use of armed drones. It is increasingly recognized that remote pilotless aircraft have become part of modern warfare, and that sometimes they are also used outside the context of armed conflict. Subsequently, both international humanitarian and human rights law can apply. The issue of access to justice, however, receives less explicit socio-political attention. Victims of armed remote pilotless aircraft strikes meet countless challenges in effectuating their right to an effective remedy. Often even a formal recognition that a strike has taken place is lacking. Furthermore, the states involved fail to publicly release information about their own investigations. This makes it difficult for those affected to substantiate their status as a victim and seek justice, including reparations. The international community should, in addition to urging involved states to independently and impartially investigate all armed drone strikes, ensure that access to an effective remedy for civilian victims, whether on an international, transnational or national level, becomes a reality.

Eijkman—This article is written in her private capacity

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

Access this chapter

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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.

    UN Human Rights Council 2010, para 1.

  2. 2.

    The US has also engaged in this practice in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. See UN Human Rights Council 2014a, pp. 10–18; UNGA 2013b, pp. 6–11; Blum and Heymann 2012, pp. 119–134.

  3. 3.

    UN Human Rights Council 2014b.

  4. 4.

    Bureau of Investigative Journalism 2009; Centre for Civilians in Conflict & Colombia Law School 2012; Human Rights Watch 2014a; Open Society Justice Initiative and Mwatana Human Rights Organization 2015; Stanford/NYU Report 2012.

  5. 5.

    Reprieve 2013.

  6. 6.

    Amnesty International 2013.

  7. 7.

    Devereaux 2015.

  8. 8.

    Melzer 2013, 2008.

  9. 9.

    Rosén 2014; Melzer 2013, pp 16–18.

  10. 10.

    UN Human Rights Council 2014a, p. 5; UNGA 2013b.

  11. 11.

    UN Human Rights Council 2014a, pp. 18–19.

  12. 12.

    Moir 2005, p. 108.

  13. 13.

    UN Charter, Article 51.

  14. 14.

    Human Rights Watch 2013.

  15. 15.

    Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharf’s Speech at the UN General Assembly 2013; Muhammad 2013; Roberston and Botelho 2013; Wikileaks Cables 2011.

  16. 16.

    Council of Europe (COE), ‘European Convention of Human Rights’, Rome, 4.IX 1950, Article2(1) (ECHR); UNGA, ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, UNGA Res 2200A (XXI), 999, 1976, Article 6 (ICCPR), March 1976; UNGA 2005a.

  17. 17.

    UN Human Rights Council 2010.

  18. 18.

    Prepared remarks by the President of the United States at the National Defense University on the administration’s counter-terrorism policy 2013.

  19. 19.

    McCrisken and Phythian 2014; Stanford/NYU Report 2012; The Bureau of Investigative Journalism 2012.

  20. 20.

    Prepared remarks by the President of the United States at the National Defense University on the administration’s counter-terrorism policy 2013.

  21. 21.

    Open Society Justice Initiative and Mwatana Human Rights Organization 2015; Amnesty International 2013; Hongju Koh 2013; Human Rights Watch 2013; ProPublica 2013a, b.

  22. 22.

    See among others Abiziad and Brooks 2014; Human Rights Watch 2013; Amnesty International 2013; Stanford/NYU Report 2012.

  23. 23.

    Human Rights Committee 1982; Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1995.

  24. 24.

    Geneva Conventions, Article 1; AP I, Articles 11, 85 (grave breaches), 87(3); Geneva Conventions I–IV, Articles 50/51/130/147.

  25. 25.

    UN Economic and Social Council 1989.

  26. 26.

    UNGA 2010; UNGA 2013b.

  27. 27.

    Human rights law/Geneva Conventions (I–IV), Articles 49/50/129/146; Geneva Convention (IV), Articles 3 and 4. AP I, Article 75.

  28. 28.

    UNGA 2010, 2013b.

  29. 29.

    UNGA 2013a, b.

  30. 30.

    Open Society Justice Initiative and Mwatana Human Rights Organization 2015; Reprieve 2014; Amnesty International 2013; Human Rights Watch 2013; Centre for Civilians in Conflict and Colombia Law School 2012; UN Human Rights Council 2014c.

  31. 31.

    UNGA 2005a, b.

  32. 32.

    Idem; UN Human Rights Committee 2004.

  33. 33.

    Devereaux 2015; Open Society Justice Initiative and Mwatana Human Rights Organization 2015; Reprieve 2014; Amnesty International 2013; Human Rights Watch 2013.

  34. 34.

    Centre for Civilians in Conflict and Colombia Law School 2012.

  35. 35.

    On 12 December 2013, the United States aerial drone launched four Hellfire missiles on a convoy of 11 cars and pickup trucks during a counterterrorism operation in rural Yemen. The strike killed at least 12 men and wounded at least 15 others, 6 of them seriously. Witnesses and relatives of the dead and wounded interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Yemen said the convoy was a wedding procession Human Rights Watch 2014b.

  36. 36.

    ProPublica 2013a, b.

  37. 37.

    Woods 2012.

  38. 38.

    Idem.

  39. 39.

    UN Human Rights Council, Panel discussion on “Ensuring use of remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones in counterterrorism and military operations in accordance with international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law”, draft notes, September 2014, http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15080&LangID=E. Accessed 28 September 2014.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quirine Eijkman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eijkman, Q., Bakker, M. (2016). Access to an Effective Remedy and Reparations for Civilian Victims of Armed Drone Strikes. In: Custers, B. (eds) The Future of Drone Use. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 27. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-132-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-132-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-131-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-132-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships