University of East Anglia expert says legal defence for drone killings is “very dodgy”

Screengrab taken from a militant video posted on YouTube of Reyaad Khan, a British citizen fighting for Islamic State (IS), as David Cameron has revealed he was killed in an RAF drone attack in Syria. Photo: YouTube/PA Wire

Serious legal questions have been raised by a UEA expert over the Prime Minister’s authorisation of RAF drone strikes to kill British terrorists in Syria.

Share Email this article to a friend To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

RAF Reaper UAV as two British citizens who were fighting for Islamic State (IS) were killed in an RAF drone strike in Syria which was carried out without parliamentary approval, David Cameron has said. Cpl Steve Bain ABIPP/MoD/Crown C/PA Wire RAF Reaper UAV as two British citizens who were fighting for Islamic State (IS) were killed in an RAF drone strike in Syria which was carried out without parliamentary approval, David Cameron has said. Cpl Steve Bain ABIPP/MoD/Crown C/PA Wire

Simon Behrman said the legal defence for the targeted killings was “very dodgy” after David Cameron told the House of Commons Reyaad Khan and fellow British jihadi Junaid Hussain were planning “barbaric attacks against the West”, including terror plots targeting “high profile public commemorations” this summer.

Dr Behrman said: “The key issue here is about the targeted killing of people outside of an armed conflict.

“If the UK were engaged in an armed conflict in Syria and the target was an enemy combatant, then it would be legal. But as the UK is not, this does not apply.

“The legal defence used by the UK and US governments in this context is the principle of self-defence. Self-defence against an attack or one that is imminent is justifiable in international law.

“The criteria for launching a strike in such circumstances is that the threat must be about to materialise and there is no other means of stopping it, other than using armed force. It seems the UK government was arguing this yesterday, although the questions of just how imminent the alleged attack was, and whether there were other means for stopping it, are very vague here.

“Alternatively the UK government might be trying to adopt the pre-emptive self-defence doctrine that the US has used since 9/11. This argues that it is legal to attack when you think that someone is planning an attack, but where it is not necessarily imminent. The legal grounds for this are very weak, relying solely on an obscure case from the 1830s – which isn’t even really a ‘case’, but rather an exchange of letters between two governments.

“In short, the legal defence for targeted killings against people, when an attack from them against us is very, very dodgy. It is, as most legal experts say, more like extra-judicial killing.”

The decision to authorise the use of RAF drones to strike individuals in Syria plotting attacks on the UK was taken “some months ago”, Downing Street revealed today.

A meeting of senior members of the National Security Council, chaired by David Cameron earlier this year, received advice from the Attorney General that such attacks would be legal on grounds of self-defence, said the Prime Minister’s official spokeswoman.

But she declined to confirm or deny whether the meeting had drawn up a “kill list” of named individuals for targeting, saying only that decisions on future operations would be taken on a “case by case” basis.

The details emerged as Defence Secretary Michael Fallon indicated that more drone strikes could be launched within weeks to kill terrorists in Syria plotting to wreak carnage in Britain.

Mr Fallon - who gave the final approval for the operation which killed militants Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin in the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqah on August 21 - said the Government would “not hesitate” to order further strikes of this kind.