THE ROLE OF PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC REGULATION FOR DRONE USE IN ARMED CONFLICT

Abstract

It is true that when specific regulation exist it is much easier to hold operators of any weapon during Armed Conflict accountable. However, in an ever evolving world, new technologies emerge that may or may not have been contemplated by existing laws as per its use, its control or management. Under International Humanitarian Law, bodies of rules exist be it treaty laws, special regulation that ensure that warfare do not denigrate to complete annihilation. It was in furtherance of that purpose that Marten clause was introduced to the preamble of 1899 Hague regulation II –Laws and Customs of War on Land, for instances where the law falls short. There are differing angles to what it entails, but for the purpose of this work, Marten Clause provides that because International treaties cannot be all encompassing, states cannot use that as a justification for a wrongful action. The Marten clause as set out in 1977 Additional Protocol II recalls that in cases not covered by the law in force, the human persons remain under the protection of the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience. This aim of the work is therefore to analyse what this dictate of public conscience means and how it’s applies during hostilities to the extent of playing whatever role in regulating drone use in armed conflict. The research employs the doctrinal research methodology as it relies mostly on books, published articles and research works. It recommends at the end for the need to integrate and make room for public conscience for a more nuanced rules regulating warfare and drone employment by encouraging reliance on public conscience for areas where the law is silent.