Page 47 - Coespu 2019-1

vidual were to be de-
prived of his life du-
ring an armed conflict,
in a manner that was
lawful under IHL, it
would not be an arbi-
trary killing and thus it
would be consistent
even with the IHRL
norms. On the con-
trary, outside of an ar-
med conflict, a state
may use lethal force
when exercising law
enforcement, but not
arbitrarily. The UN
Human Rights Com-
mittee, in its interpre- spect the Human Rights of “terro- of society so can measures adop-
tation, requires that force used is rist” but moreover of innocent civi- ted by States to counter it. In fact,
proportionate and necessary; pro- lians treated as “collateral States have not only a right but a
portionate to the threat the target damages”. The “Right to life” is just duty to take effective counter-terro-
represents; and necessary as the one of many other rights that this rism measures but they must consi-
only available means to stop the type of operations are denying to der that effective counter-terrorism
threat. Consequently, the use of terrorist and civilian casualties. To measures and the protection of
drone strikes or “targeted killing” a certain extent it could be consi- human rights are complementary
operations, to kill outside of an ar- dered that this type of operations and mutually reinforcing objectives
med conflict may likely be unlawful are also violating the right not to which must be pursued together as
under IHRL. Their use would po- be subjected to cruel, inhuman or part of States’ duty to protect indi-
tentially be lawful if other lives degrading treatment of the civi- viduals.
were at stake and the urgency of lians living in the zones were drone
the situation did not leave any raids are conducted. This is due to
choice other than the use of lethal the psychological impact of the
force. Even the UN Basic Principles presence of drones upon those
on the Use of Force and Firearms who live beneath them. Life in a
by Law Enforcement Officials region in which drones are regu-
(1990) present the use of lethal larly operated has been described
force as reconcilable with the right as ‘hell on earth’. Isn’t it awkward?
to life when used in ‘defence of Fighting terrorism spreading ter-
others against the imminent threat ror. Unfortunately, it is not only
of death or serious injury [or] to awkward but also counterproducti-
prevent the perpetration of a parti- ve as this counter terrorist attitude
cularly serious crime involving gra- as proved to be one of the driving
ve threat to life’. Here we find one factors to further radicalization
of the first discrepancies, on one and violent extremism. To conclu-
hand, the States launch counter de this short excursion, far from
terrorism operations to protect the claiming to be a complete analysis
civilias, to fulfil their obligations in of the topic, I want to highlight that
protecting the Human Rights abu- just as terrorism impacts on hu- Major Marco Sutto
sed by terrorist groups but on the man rights and on the functioning CoESPU HR Chair
other hand doing so they disre-

47