FN-bureau søger at besvare spørgsmålet, fordi de førerløse fly slår stadig flere ihjel i fattige lande: Hvordan reagerer et samfund, som angribes af en drone, mens der går vestlige nødhjælpsfolk rundt?
AMMAN, 20 March 2013 (IRIN): In recent years, the legality and civilian casualties of the secretive American drone programme have increasingly been the subject of much discussion.
But one question has gone largely unasked: What is the impact of drone warfare on humanitarian work?
In places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, strikes by unmanned planes are increasingly affecting humanitarian operations, aid workers say, necessitating a greater discussion by humanitarians on how to deal with the impact and a greater focus by US policymakers on how to mitigate it.
The issue will be increasingly relevant in coming years, as drones, also used in Somalia, Yemen and Gaza, become an ever more popular weapon of choice in counter-terrorism operations.
“The public debate, rightly so, has focused on the transparency and targeting of drones, but for humanitarians (humanitære hjælpefolk), there are a whole set of much more specific concerns that we do not necessarily have answers on and ought to be thinking about,” says Naz Modirzadeh.
She is a senior fellow at Harvard Law School and a leading expert on the intersection between counterterrorism and humanitarian aid.
The legal framework
One of the first questions of relevance for humanitarians is the legal framework under which the drone strikes operate and whether international humanitarian law (IHL), which protects humanitarian access (adgang) and aid workers, applies.
Last month, NBC News made public a US Justice Department white paper making the legal case for drone strikes “outside [an] area of active hostilities”, in which IHL traditionally applies.
It argued the USA was engaged in a geographically boundless non-international armed conflict with non-state armed groups – essentially claiming that it is “at war everywhere all the time”, as one international lawyer put it.
In the white paper, the US argues its counter-terrorism programme will be “informed by” what it presents as four core principles of IHL:
* necessity
* distinction
* proportionality and
* humanity.
But it is not clear whether this is a binding interpretation of the law or a flexible policy statement.
Fundamental questions
Modirzadeh argues there are unanticipated (ikke forventet) costs of waging conflict in what she calls “fuzzy international legal terms”.
“A purported (angivelig) global non-international armed conflict, fought through weaponized unmanned vessels, whatever its status under international law, raises fundamental questions about how the humanitarian community will engage with states in order to ensure that lifesaving supplies reach the civilian population,” she told IRIN, noting:
“If strikes target a particular region (such as in Yemen or Pakistan), what state, if any, has an obligation (forpligtelse) to ensure the population has access to relief operations? With whom do humanitarians interact to negotiate access?”
“Can the territorial state reasonably be expected to offer meaningful and secure access? Does the targeting state have any obligations under IHL relevant to humanitarian assistance? Does human rights law [apply] as the dominant set of rules relevant to the basic needs of the population?”
In an attempt to answer some of these questions, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism in January launched an inquiry into the civilian impact of the use of drones, focusing on the applicable legal framework.
He will present findings and recommendations to the UN General Assembly later this year.
Perceptions of neutrality
Læs videre på
http://www.irinnews.org/Report/97690/Analysis-The-view-from-the-ground-How-drone-strikes-hamper-aid
Se også telegrammet
http://www.u-landsnyt.dk/nyhed/12-03-13/dronerne-er-her
