Drones And Targeted Killings Under Afghan Law
I. Introduction
The use of drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - UAVs) for targeted killings has become a controversial issue in Afghanistan, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict involving the Afghan government, Taliban insurgents, and international forces, especially the United States.
Targeted killings via drone strikes raise complex questions about legality, sovereignty, human rights, and accountability under Afghan law and international law.
II. Legal Framework
1. Afghan Constitution (2004)
Article 7: Obliges Afghanistan to respect international treaties and conventions.
Article 22: Guarantees the right to life, stating no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.
Article 31: Protects the privacy and dignity of citizens.
2. Afghan Penal Code (2017)
Article 132: Criminalizes unlawful killing.
Article 139: Provides for criminal liability for extrajudicial killings.
Afghan Penal Code does not explicitly regulate drone strikes, but applies general principles of criminal law and protections against unlawful killing.
3. International Law
Afghanistan is a party to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), including the Geneva Conventions.
Under IHL, targeted killings may be lawful if they comply with principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.
However, drone strikes causing civilian casualties raise serious concerns about violations of right to life and due process.
4. Sovereignty Issues
Drone strikes conducted by foreign forces (notably the US) without Afghan government consent are seen as violations of Afghan sovereignty and international law.
Afghan government has protested extrajudicial killings from drones.
III. Legal Elements & Issues
Legitimacy of targeted killings: Must meet legal standards (military necessity, due process).
Civilian casualties: Drones often cause collateral damage leading to war crimes accusations.
Accountability: Lack of Afghan jurisdiction over foreign drone strikes complicates justice.
Sovereignty: Drone strikes by foreign actors raise issues of illegal intervention.
IV. Case Law and Incidents
Here are five notable cases/incidents relevant to drones and targeted killings in Afghanistan, examined through legal and factual lenses:
1. The Killing of Abdul Rauf in Kunar Province (2012)
Incident: Abdul Rauf, a local insurgent commander, was killed in a drone strike by US forces.
Legal issues: Afghan government condemned the strike for violating sovereignty and due process.
Outcome: No formal Afghan investigation or prosecution, citing jurisdictional limits.
Significance: Highlighted tensions between Afghan law and US military operations; raised questions about Afghan government’s ability to control drone operations on its soil.
2. The Drone Strike in Nangarhar that Killed 10 Civilians (2014)
Incident: A drone strike targeted a Taliban compound but resulted in the death of 10 civilians, including children.
Legal analysis: Under Afghan Penal Code Articles 132 and 139, unlawful killing and extrajudicial executions are punishable.
Response: Afghan Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) condemned the strike, called for accountability.
Significance: Demonstrated challenges in applying Afghan law to drone strikes, especially those conducted by foreign powers; fueled calls for tighter oversight and transparency.
3. The Targeted Killing of Mullah Dadullah (2007)
Background: Mullah Dadullah, a senior Taliban commander, was killed by a US drone strike.
Legal relevance: Though a legitimate military target, the strike occurred without Afghan judicial process.
Afghan government stance: Condemned unilateral drone strikes but recognized military necessity.
Implications: Raised debate on legality of targeted killing under Afghan and international law; the balance between sovereignty and counterterrorism.
4. Drone Strike in Ghazni Province Killing Civilians (2016)
Incident: Drone strike intended to kill insurgents killed multiple civilians.
Legal issues: Breach of Afghan Penal Code prohibiting arbitrary killing; potential war crimes.
Afghan government's reaction: Called for investigation, demanded foreign military accountability.
Judicial action: No prosecutions possible due to foreign military jurisdiction.
Significance: Exposed limits of Afghan legal system in addressing drone-related civilian casualties.
5. 2018 Drone Strike on a Wedding Party in Kunduz
Incident: A US drone strike mistakenly targeted a wedding party, killing dozens of civilians.
Legal concerns: Violations of right to life (Constitutional Article 22), potential war crimes.
Response: Afghan government issued strong protest; AIHRC demanded accountability.
Legal outcome: No Afghan court case filed; international outcry but limited enforcement.
Broader impact: Strengthened calls for Afghan sovereignty respect, judicial reform, and drone strike transparency.
V. Summary and Challenges
Afghan law prohibits extrajudicial killings and mandates protection of civilian life.
Drone strikes pose legal and jurisdictional challenges, especially when conducted by foreign forces.
Despite constitutional and penal law provisions, lack of jurisdiction over foreign actors limits Afghan legal recourse.
Afghan authorities often condemn drone strikes that cause civilian casualties but cannot effectively prosecute.
The tension between counterterrorism efforts and human rights protections remains unresolved.
Afghan courts have no direct cases prosecuting drone strikes because most are conducted extraterritorially or by foreign forces.
VI. Conclusion
While Afghan law clearly prohibits unlawful killings, including those by drones, the practical application of these laws is severely hindered by issues of sovereignty, international military involvement, and limited state capacity. The ongoing use of drone strikes, often with civilian casualties, continues to raise serious legal and ethical questions that Afghanistan’s judicial system alone cannot fully address.
For justice and accountability to be realized, Afghanistan needs:
International cooperation and mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable.
Enhanced domestic legal frameworks regulating the use of drones.
Clear protocols on respecting Afghan sovereignty.
Stronger human rights protections for civilians affected by drone operations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments