|
|
I am taking the floor to explain Pakistan's position on the resolution in L. 61/Rev.1 on Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
I thank the delegation of Mexico for their leadership and hard work to present a comprehensive resolution on this important contemporary issue.
We have joined the consensus on the resolution in the spirit of accommodation and in the interest of forward movement.
This resolution, however, does not fully reflect established legal opinion and norms on the use of armed drones for extra-territorial strikes on the territories of member states.
We appreciate that the resolution, for the first time, includes references to the use of unmanned aerial aircraft for counter-terrorism and emphasizes the urgent and imperative need to seek agreement between member states on the legal questions pertaining to such aircraft operations.
We also take note that the resolution urges member states to ensure that any measure taken or means employed to counter terrorism, including the use of remotely piloted aircraft, comply with their obligations under international law, including the UN Charter, human rights law and humanitarian law, in particular the principles of distinction and proportionality.
The resolution calls for ensuring accountability by undertaking prompt, independent and impartial fact finding inquiries wherever there are indications of breaches of the obligations under international human rights law.
We welcome these formulations.
We took note of Special Rapporteur Ban Emmerson’s interim report to the Committee in October this year in which he concluded that continued use of remotely piloted aircraft amounted to a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
It was disturbing to note from his report that the use of armed drones was proliferating.
We believe that civilian casualties as a result of the drone strikes violate international humanitarian and human rights law, as well as international law. In this regard, there is no grey area. When armed drones kill unarmed, innocent civilians, there is a clear breach of international law.
The use of drones violates Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In the asymmetric terrorist war, the well established humanitarian principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution must be observed. This is not being done.
There is also obvious geographical disjunction between the location of drone strikes and the primary battlefield.
A signature strike has to be justified under IHL or IHRL to prove that it is a legitimate act of self-defence. Legally, it is important to define the geographical scope of the conflict as well as the immediacy of the threat. It is not justifiable to launch strikes in the context of non-international armed conflict in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.
Drone strikes put all Pakistanis at risk. The psychological impact of the use of drones on the relatives of civilians killed in an inhumane manner incites sentiment and hatred and radicalizes more people. Drone strikes are therefore counterproductive in countering terrorism.
Mr. Emmerson presented a preliminary report to the Committee. We call on the Special Rapporteur to make stronger recommendations in his final report that will help enforce a more stringent, prohibitive regimen for the use of drones to save civilians from unforeseen, instant death, injury and disability
Pakistan hopes that the final report would suggest practical measures to advance the debate on the legality of the use of armed drones at the UN fora and focus more sharply on their disastrous humanitarian and human rights consequences.
Pakistan calls for immediate cessation of illegal drone-strikes against our territory.