A/HRC/44/38 III. Targeted killings using drones and international law 30. As argued by a previous Special Rapporteur,69 to be lawful, a drone strike must satisfy the legal requirements under all applicable international legal regimes: the law regulating inter-State use of force (jus ad bellum), international humanitarian law and international human rights law. 31. On its own, jus ad bellum is not sufficient to guide the use of force extraterritorially. While jus ad bellum is a question between States under the Charter of the United Nations, other obligations are owed to individuals. Accordingly, even the legality of a strike under Article 51 of the Charter does not preclude its wrongfulness under international humanitarian or human rights law. As the International Law Commission has stated: “As to obligations under international humanitarian law and in relation to non-derogable human rights provisions, self-defence does not preclude the wrongfulness of conduct.”70 32. While previous Special Rapporteurs have applied this approach to situations of peace and non-international armed conflict, current events oblige the present Special Rapporteur to consider these legal questions in reference to international armed conflicts and to how the complementarity between international humanitarian law and international human rights law is made operational. A. Protection against arbitrary killings 33. The right to protection from arbitrary deprivation of life is a rule of customary international law, a general principle of international law and a rule of jus cogens. It is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and regional conventions.71 34. The complementarity of international humanitarian and human rights law has been highlighted by States, international bodies and courts.72 The well-established principle that international human rights law continues to apply during war and public emergencies 73 has been confirmed in international jurisprudence 74 and human rights treaties, including their derogations.75 35. That said, the legal assessment of targeted killings may result in different outcomes depending on the regime considered. As a general principle, under international human rights law, the intentional, premeditated killing of an individual is unlawful unless it is carried out as a means of last resort and is strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life. For a deliberate killing to be lawful under international humanitarian law, however, the target must be a legitimate target (i.e., a combatant or a civilian directly participating in hostilities) and the killing must be guided by the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 10 A/68/382 and Corr.1. Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001, vol. II (Part Two) and corrigendum, paras. 76–77, at p. 74. A/68/382 and Corr.1, para. 30. See, e.g., International Conference on Human Rights resolution XXIII, on human rights in armed conflicts (A/Conf.32/41); General Assembly resolution 2444 (XXIII) and Security Council resolutions 237 (1967), 1649 (2005) and 1882 (2009); Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136; InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objections, 23 November 2004; Marko Milanović, “Norm conflicts, international humanitarian law and human rights law”, in International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, Orna BenNaftali, ed. (Oxford University Press, 2011). www.justsecurity.org/34631/human-rights-armed-conflict-part/; www.justsecurity.org/34815/humanrights-armed-conflict-part-ii/; Adil Ahmad Haque, Law and Morality at War (Oxford University Press, 2017). See, for example, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226. Milanović, “Norm conflicts, international humanitarian law and human rights law”.