The use of drones by British forces in Afghanistan may be in breach of international law, a controversial legal opinion circulated to peace campaigners has claimed.
The argument challenges the well-established legal defence set out by the RAF for deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the UN-sanctioned conflict, reports the Guardian.
The legal opinion, written by Phil Shiner and Dan Carey of the Birmingham-based Public Interest Lawyers, argues that use of drones inside Afghanistan, which is a UN-declared conflict zone, is subject to the European convention on human rights (ECHR).
That principle is already established in British case law, they say, in relation to the case of Al Skeini, which went to judges in Strasbourg and concerned the killing of civilians during British security operations in Iraq.
Their document states that the requirement to use 'no more (force) than absolutely necessary' in article 2(2) of the European convention relating to when it is permissible to take life, places a significant restriction on drone use. Only when it is absolutely necessary to kill someone rather than arrest/disable them will the use of drones be lawful, they said.
Publication of the document coincides with the court appearance this week of six anti-drone protesters who pleaded not guilty to causing criminal damage following the first mass trespass inside the RAF's new ground control for Afghan drone operations.
The protesters, two of whom are priests, entered RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire on Monday and were brought before Lincoln magistrates on Tuesday. They say their action was to prevent crimes being committed in Afghanistan.
The six Disarm the Drones activists are: Chris Cole, a drones researcher from Oxford; Fr Martin Newell, a Catholic priest from London; Rev Dr Keith Hebden, an Anglican vicar in Mansfield; Susan Clarkson, a Quaker pensioner from Oxford; Henrietta Cullinan, a teacher from London; and Penny Walker, who describes herself as a grandmother from Leicester.
