Who is against drones

The use of drones ultimately kills people and denies their right to life. The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being.

It is also our firm belief that the measures taken by any State threatening the life and dignity of the human person cannot be justified. We believe the sanctity of life and the biblical message call us to protect the right to life; deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter Proverbs It is in this context that the World Council of Churches expresses its deep concern about the targeted killings by drones carried out in different countries.

The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting at Bossey, Switzerland, from 7 to 12 February , therefore:. Condemns drone strikes by any country, especially the unlawful policies and practices of the use of lethal force against terrorism;. Urges all States using drones to be transparent about the development, acquisition and use of drones and publically disclose the legal basis for the use of drones, exercising operational responsibility;.

Calls on States where armed drones are used to respect and recognize the duty to protect the right to life of their subjects and oppose the violation of human rights and principles of international humanitarian law by foreign powers;. Urges the international community to oppose the unlawful policies and practices, particularly of US Drone strikes in Pakistan;. Requests that the international community refrain from transfers of drones weapons that can be used to commit serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law;.

Urges the US government to ensure justice for victims of unlawful drone strikes, including family members of the victims of unlawful killings, and to avail effective access to remedies, especially restitution, compensation to families of civilians killed or injured, and adequate protection for their rehabilitation;.

Most famously, the United States has carried out such attacks in different parts of the world, including Afghanistan , Pakistan , Yemen and Somalia. Though to a lesser degree, other countries have also carried out such attacks. For example, France undertook its first armed drone strike in Mali in , the United Kingdom used armed drones in Syria and Russia reportedly deployed armed drones in Syria.

States are no longer the sole users of armed drones. High-technology military armed drones remain largely inaccessible to ANSAs, but the weaponization of civilian drone technology to undertake armed attacks provides ANSAS with some limited-air-based military capacity , normally unavailable to them. ANSAs increasingly integrate modified civilian drones into their tactical arsenal during armed conflicts. The use of armed drones allows for the remote delivery of lethal force, both inside and outside armed conflicts with little risk to the drone operator.

Such a lower threshold, coupled with the proliferation of the use of armed drones and the lack of transparency in their use, poses a significant risk to international peace and security.

While the use of armed drones reduces risks for the users, drone strikes increase the risks to the security of affected communities. Beyond death and physical injury, drone strikes cause multiple forms of harm , including mental trauma. The increasing use of weaponized civilian drones further compounds these threats to civilians. First, weaponized civilian drones increase capacity to undertake attacks. For example, kinetic measures used to destroy armed drones, such as missiles, rockets or another drone, further expose the civilian population to harm.

The deployment of radio-frequency and GPS jammers to interfere with armed drones may interfere with everyday and often critical civilian applications of GPS ranging from bank machines to air traffic control, and hinders the use of unarmed drones for independent conflict monitoring activities. Though these developments are only nascent, the proliferation of the use of armed drones by all parties to a conflict and the adoption of counter-measures are likely to continue and pose significant challenges for the safety of the civilian population.

These humanitarian concerns are further exacerbated by a series of distinct legal concerns surrounding the use of armed drones. First and foremost, in many instances the identification of the applicable legal framework, namely IHL or International Human Rights Law IHRL , is contested, largely depending on whether an attack takes place as part of the hostilities during an armed conflict. Though this piece focuses on the IHL principles governing the use of armed drones during hostilities in an armed conflict, the relevance of IHRL for the analysis of drone strikes deserves to be underlined.

In particular, the use of armed drones raises serious concerns for the accountability and transparency of drone strikes as well as the question of access to remedies for the victims and their next of kin. The use of armed drones is not specifically regulated under international law. But their use is governed by general rules of international law. Armed drones are not weapons in themselves, but platforms that deliver a weapon.

Under IHL, means of warfare covers weapons, weapons systems or platforms. The way such weapons, weapons systems or platforms are used is considered a method of warfare.

Hence, the use of armed drones as a means and methods of warfare is regulated by the IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities, namely the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack as well as the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.

But this failure did not deter the US. British statistics give some idea of the frequency of contemporary drone strikes the US does not release equivalent data. In four years of war against Isis in Iraq and Syria from , Reaper drones were deployed on more than 2, missions — almost two a day.

RAF Reaper drones are piloted from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire and by UK personnel from Creech air force base in Nevada, where crews operate in three-hour shifts, although the drones themselves are based in the Middle East, almost certainly at an air base in Kuwait. Pilots on rotation control devices that are able to loiter in a conflict zone for about 16 to 20 hours — and able in theory to hit a target the size of a household pane of glass.

Drone usage consistently tests legal norms. For the US, such drone strikes have become commonplace. The practice began under George W Bush, was expanded under Barack Obama and appears to have increased further still under Donald Trump, although in March he made analysis harder by signing an executive order banning reporting of drone casualty details. The reality is that civilians have been hit in strike after strike as targets are misidentified. Precise figures, however, are hard to establish as much of the information is classified.

In a rare piece of disclosure , the US said air strikes from both drones and planes, the figures are not separated out had been made against targets outside Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria between January and December But Jennifer Gibson at human rights group Reprieve says the organisation has tracked a high rate of errors.

Some disclosures stretch credibility to the limit. The UK says only one civilian was killed or injured from British drone and air raids in Syria and Iraq, between September and January