Words: 419
The predator drone violated four specific set of laws under the ILL, the following rules are: (1) the participating parties of the conflict should always distinguish the objects from military and civilian objects or “the principle of distinguishing”; (2) the attack should not be targeting any hospitals or safety zones; (3) there should be no indiscriminate attacks; and, (4) the attack should not cause unnecessary harm. 1 .
Kalmia failed to distinguish military to civilian objects The participating parties in an armed conflict should always distinguish their objects whether they are military or civilian. Therefore, the Kalmia should have done their duty of distinguishing their objects before they have fired the predator drone. The Salaam’s source should have properly distinguished between civilians and legitimate military targets but then that wasn’t the case and the predator drone has indiscriminately attacked the Bulrush’s family which killed 7 other people namely Miss Bulrush’s wife, four children, and his elderly parents.
And, it is not only the Bulrush’s family who was attacked but also the Castro Hospital which is a safety zone. This is in clear violation of ILL and the principle of distinguishing. 2. Kalmia attacked the Castro Hospital, a safety zone The Castro Hospital was beside the house of the Bulrush’s family and was also targeted when they attacked the Bulrush’s family.
It is clearly stated in the Geneva Convention: General Protection of Populations against Certain Consequences of War, Article 18, that civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. 3 But then, that was not the case when predator drone attacked the Castro hospital which clearly is a location of the international law. 3.
The Predator Drone’s attack is unnecessary and indiscriminate It is stated in the Customary ILL that the indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) which use a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) which use a method or means of combat in the expense of effecting that which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. It is then clear that the Salaam’s predator drone violated three stated criterion mentioned.