A/HRC/25/59 people. Remotely piloted aircraft under the control of Israel are alleged to have been involved in the operation. The deceased were a father, his 12-year-old daughter, and his 19year-old son. All three were reportedly picking spearmint at the time of the attack. Investigations conducted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights indicate that all three victims were civilians; that no warnings were issued to residents prior to the attack; and that no militant activities were being carried out in the location (A/HRC/22/35/Add.1, para. 13). 69. On 21 November 2012, precision-guided munitions struck an olive farm east of Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, killing two people and injuring a third. Remotely piloted aircraft under the control of Israel are alleged to have been involved in the operation. The deceased were named as Ibrahim Abu Nasser (84 years old) and Amira Abu Nasser (his 14-year-old granddaughter). Mohamed Abu Nasser (aged 42) sustained nonfatal injuries in the attack. In February 2013, Human Rights Watch published the results of field research into this incident.36 Investigations conducted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights indicate that all three victims were civilians; that they were working on the farm at the time of the attack; that no warnings were issued to residents prior to the attack; and that no militant activities were being carried out in the location (ibid.). D. Achieving a consensus on the applicable legal principles 70. In his interim report to the General Assembly, the Special Rapporteur identified a number of legal issues on which there is currently no clear international consensus, or where current practices and interpretations appear to challenge established legal norms (paras. 51–76). Legal uncertainty in relation to the interpretation and application of the core principles of international law governing the use of deadly force in counter-terrorism operations leaves dangerous latitude for differences of practice by States. This runs counter to the obligation identified in paragraph 6 (s) of General Assembly resolution 68/178 (see para. 23 above); fails to provide adequate protection for the right to life; poses a threat to the international legal order; and runs the risk of undermining international peace and security. 71. There is thus an urgent and imperative need to reach a consensus between States on, inter alia, the following issues: (a) Does the international law principle of self-defence entitle a State to engage in non-consensual lethal counter-terrorism operations on the territory of another State against a non-State armed group that poses a direct and immediate threat of attack, even when the armed group concerned has no operational connection to its host State? If so, under what conditions does such a right of self-defence arise? Does such a right arise where the territorial State is judged to be unable or unwilling to prevent the threat from materializing? If so, what are the criteria for determining “unwillingness” or “inability” to act?37 (b) Is the international law principle of self-defence confined to situations in which an armed attack has already taken place, or does it entitle a State to carry out preemptive military operations against a non-State armed group on the territory of another 36 37 18 Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Gaza Airstrikes Violated Laws of War”, 12 February 2012. Available at www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/12/israel-gaza-airstrikes-violated-laws-war. For a discussion of the issues, see the Special Rapporteur’s interim report to the General Assembly, A/68/389, paras. 55 and 56; and the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, A/68/382, paras. 88–92.