SN06493.pdf — page 34

Number 06493, 8 October 2015 34 
protect human life and to investigate all deaths (civilians and 
combatants alike) arguably caused in breach of that obligation.137  
The Defence Committee noted this in its report. The Government’s 
response to the Committee explained the “well-established command, 
control, supervisory, training and qualification frameworks the RAF has 
in place for conducting air operations.” The Ministry said Reaper crew 
receive regular training on domestic and international law regarding the 
use of force, which includes the understanding of, and compliance with, 
UK Rules of Engagement and International Humanitarian Law. Reaper 
crew have access to legal advice and support during operations 24 
hours a day, 365 days of the year. The Government went on to say: 
The UK complies fully with its obligations under international law, 
including as set out in Article 36 of Additional Protocol 1 to the 
Geneva Conventions, to review all new weapons, means and 
methods of warfare. This process applies equally to manned and 
unmanned systems. UK forces operate in accordance with 
International Humanitarian Law, following the principles of 
humanity, proportionality, military necessity and ensuring that 
only appropriate military targets are selected. The UK's clearly 
defined Rules of Engagement are formulated on this basis. The 
same strict Rules of Engagement that govern the use of 
conventional military aircraft also apply to RPAS and targets are 
always positively identified as legitimate military objectives.  
UK Reaper aircrew carry out a high level of consistent training and 
have continuous access to legal representation. As a result, the 
public can be confident that they always strictly adhere to these 
Rules of Engagement.138 
There is a significant legal debate about the United States policy on 
using its armed RPAS fleet for counter-terrorism operations.139 The UN 
Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Ben Emmerson, released a report 
in March 2014 examining the use of remotely piloted aircraft 
extraterritorial lethal counter-terrorism operations. He raised a number 
of legal questions and urged all States to ensure that the use of 
remotely piloted aircraft complies with international humanitarian law 
and international humanitarian rights law. 140 
The UN Human Rights Council subsequently adopted a resolution in 
April 2014 calling on states to ensure that “any measures employed to 
counter terrorism, including the use of remotely piloted aircraft or 
armed drones, comply with their obligations under international law, 
including the Charter of the United Nations, international human rights 
law and international humanitarian law, in particular the principles of 
precaution, distinction and proportionality.” The UK voted against the 
resolution.141 
                                                                                             
137  “The legality of the UK’s use of Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones)”, Public 
Interest Lawyers, 8 June 2013 
138  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use: Government response, 22 July 2014, HC 611 2013-14, para 67 
139  For more about US policy on targeted killings, see Council on Foreign Relations 
backgrounder, 23 May 2013; “Legal Issues Related to the Lethal Targeting of U.S. 
Citizens Suspected of Terrorist Activities” Congressional Research Service 
memorandum, 4 May 2012 
140  UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/25/59, 11 March 2014, para 73 
141  UN Human Rights Council A/HRC/RES/25/22, 15 April 2014