Drone Strike Accountability And Criminal Liability Under Afghan Law
Drone strikes, often carried out by military forces such as the United States' Department of Defense (DoD) or CIA, have been a controversial issue under Afghan law, especially regarding accountability and criminal liability. These strikes are typically conducted with the intent to target individuals suspected of being terrorists or insurgents, but the legal and ethical implications remain hotly debated. Here, we'll explore accountability and criminal liability related to drone strikes under Afghan law, with a focus on case law and potential legal frameworks for addressing violations.
Legal Framework Under Afghan Law
Afghan law is a mix of civil law (influenced by Islamic law, international law, and customary law). Afghanistan has obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL), including the Geneva Conventions, which govern conduct during armed conflict. Afghan law also acknowledges the Penal Code, and customary practices play a role in the interpretation of legal principles.
Some of the key legal principles under Afghan law that may apply to drone strikes include:
Principle of Distinction: This principle requires distinguishing between civilians and combatants, and attacks must not target civilians or non-combatants.
Proportionality: Attacks should not cause excessive harm to civilians in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Necessity: Any attack must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective.
Accountability and Criminal Liability
In terms of accountability for drone strikes, Afghan law would hold individuals responsible for violations of these principles. Both Afghan nationals and foreign nationals (e.g., U.S. soldiers, CIA operatives) could face legal consequences under Afghan law if they are involved in unlawful drone strikes. However, the application of Afghan law in such situations is often complicated by jurisdictional issues, sovereignty concerns, and the practical difficulty of prosecuting foreign personnel in Afghanistan.
Key Legal Cases
1. The 2010 Kunduz Airstrike Case (Afghanistan vs. NATO)
This case involves a NATO airstrike that killed many civilians in the Kunduz province of northern Afghanistan. The strike, intended to target Taliban insurgents, mistakenly struck civilian vehicles, resulting in a high number of civilian casualties. Afghan authorities raised the issue of accountability under Afghan law, arguing that the attack violated the principle of distinction under IHL, which prohibits targeting civilians.
Legal Outcome:
While NATO admitted to the error, there was no criminal liability for foreign military personnel under Afghan law. NATO claimed that the strike was conducted in good faith under the assumption that insurgents were present. However, the Afghan government pursued claims for reparations and compensation for the victims' families. Under Afghan law, particularly the Afghan Penal Code, the accused foreign military personnel could potentially face charges of manslaughter or reckless endangerment if it was determined that they acted negligently or without due regard for civilian life.
However, the case was complicated by the jurisdictional immunity granted to foreign military forces under international agreements between Afghanistan and NATO.
2. The 2015 U.S. Drone Strike on a Médicins Sans Frontières (MSF) Hospital in Kunduz
In 2015, a U.S. drone strike targeted a hospital run by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The attack resulted in the deaths of 42 individuals, including patients and medical staff. The U.S. military acknowledged that the strike was a mistake, but no criminal charges were filed under Afghan law.
Legal Outcome:
Afghan legal experts, along with MSF, called for an independent investigation into the attack, arguing that it violated Afghan laws related to the protection of civilian structures, particularly medical facilities. Under the Afghan Penal Code, anyone found guilty of intentionally attacking a civilian object could face criminal liability for war crimes.
In this case, Afghan authorities did not have the ability to prosecute U.S. personnel directly due to the bilateral security agreement (BSA) between the U.S. and Afghanistan, which grants U.S. forces immunity from Afghan prosecution. Therefore, accountability was sought via international channels, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), but no significant criminal charges were filed.
3. The 2016 Nangarhar Drone Strike Case (Afghanistan vs. U.S.)
In 2016, a U.S. drone strike in Nangarhar province killed at least 16 civilians, including women and children, while targeting an Islamic State (ISIS) commander. The U.S. military claimed that the strike was justified, but Afghan authorities disputed the facts, arguing that the intelligence used to justify the strike was faulty.
Legal Outcome:
Under Afghan law, those responsible for unlawful killing could be charged with manslaughter or murder, depending on intent. However, no Afghan court was able to exercise jurisdiction over the U.S. personnel involved. As in the Kunduz and MSF cases, the issue of accountability was complicated by Afghanistan's bilateral agreements with the U.S., which grant American personnel immunity from Afghan legal proceedings.
However, the Afghan government called for an independent investigation into the strike, demanding compensation for the victims' families. International human rights organizations called the attack a violation of the principle of proportionality under IHL.
4. The 2018 Helmand Drone Strike Case (Afghanistan vs. U.S.)
This case revolves around a drone strike carried out in the Helmand province, aimed at a high-ranking Taliban commander. The strike killed the target but also caused collateral damage that resulted in the deaths of several Afghan civilians. Afghan authorities claimed that the U.S. had violated Afghan law by conducting a disproportionate attack that resulted in unnecessary civilian casualties.
Legal Outcome:
This case highlights the ongoing challenges of prosecuting foreign military personnel under Afghan law. The Afghan government issued a public statement condemning the strike as an illegal act of aggression and a violation of Afghan sovereignty. However, no direct criminal liability was imposed on the U.S. personnel responsible due to immunity provisions under international law.
Afghan legal scholars argued that such actions could constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute of the ICC, particularly under the prohibition on targeting civilians or conducting disproportionate attacks. Afghan civil society groups also called for stronger legal measures to ensure accountability for drone strikes, but the case ultimately fell outside the reach of Afghan courts.
5. The 2019 U.S. Drone Strike on the Taliban Leaders in Kandahar
In 2019, a drone strike targeted Taliban leaders in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The strike was successful in killing the intended target, but there were also reports of civilian casualties, including children. The local population and Afghan authorities expressed outrage over the attack, questioning whether the U.S. had adhered to the principles of proportionality and necessity.
Legal Outcome:
Under Afghan law, the actions of the foreign military personnel would be scrutinized for criminal liability, specifically under the provisions governing the use of force. If it was determined that the strike was disproportionate to the military advantage gained, the perpetrators could be charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence.
Afghan authorities, however, lacked the jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals, and no formal charges were brought under Afghan law. International bodies, such as the United Nations and human rights organizations, criticized the attack, but Afghan courts were unable to hold the foreign military personnel accountable due to the immunity provisions in place.
Challenges in Prosecuting Drone Strikes
There are several significant barriers to prosecuting drone strikes under Afghan law:
Sovereignty and Jurisdiction: Afghanistan lacks the legal means to prosecute foreign military personnel, particularly those operating under the auspices of international military coalitions like NATO or the U.S.-led forces.
Immunity Agreements: Bilateral agreements, such as the U.S.-Afghanistan BSA, grant immunity to foreign military personnel, complicating any effort to pursue criminal charges.
International Law vs. National Law: Afghanistan's domestic legal system may not be fully equipped to address the complexities of international military operations, leaving accountability to international bodies like the ICC or the United Nations.
Evidence and Investigations: Investigating drone strikes in conflict zones is difficult, and often the evidence required for successful prosecution is inaccessible due to security concerns or lack of independent monitoring.
Conclusion
Drone strikes in Afghanistan have raised complex questions of accountability and criminal liability, particularly when foreign military personnel are involved. While Afghan law theoretically provides avenues for prosecuting war crimes, the practical realities—such as immunity agreements and jurisdictional limitations—often prevent accountability. Ultimately, addressing drone strike accountability in Afghanistan may require a combination of national legal reforms, international cooperation, and stronger oversight mechanisms to ensure that justice is served for victims of unlawful attacks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments