International Judicial Monitor

Published by the International Judicial Academy, Washington, D.C., with assistance from the
American Society of International Law
Summer 2015 Issue

In this issue

Home Page

SPECIAL REPORT – Special to the International Judicial Monitor

Deadly Force By Law Enforcement: Does The U.S. Comply With International Standards?

By: T’Aria Reynolds, Intern, International Judicial Academy

Traditionally, international law was limited to the regulation of diplomatic relations between the States. As counties continue to develop and the dynamics of the world change, international principles now influence matters that were once exclusive to a States domestic jurisdiction. International law and its standards have expanded to regulate multiple areas of a States domestic jurisdiction, including police conduct within a State.

Recently debates have sparked across the U.S. because of the shooting deaths of young African American men by law enforcement. Individuals across the country question whether law enforcement officials properly exercise a right to use deadly force. The shooting deaths and incidents of police brutality have sparked conversations concerning accountability and police task force reform. Additionally, the recent events have sparked a different conversation, which is whether U.S. laws governing police conduct meet international standards.

A recent report published by The Amnesty International USA found “all 50 states and Washington D.C. fail to comply with international law.” According to the report, the use of deadly force by law enforcement officials raises serious human rights concerns. The doctrine of Human Rights is extremely influential within international law. The international community believes a person is inherently entitled to certain fundamental human rights simply because he or she is a human being. Alternatively, the U.S. was founded on the principle that all human beings deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So how is it that under international standards U.S. law enforcement officials are not respecting or protecting individuals right to life?

On December 16, 1966, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR is a treaty that commits its parties to respect individual’s rights, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. In 1992, the U.S. ratified the ICCPR with five reservations and four declarations. Specifically, the U.S. declared “the provisions of Article 1 through Article 27 of the Covenant [are] not self-executing.” The declaration is

believed to be against the object and purpose of the treaty and considered void under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In 2014, the United Nations Human Rights committee, which monitors compliance with the ICCPR, reviewed U.S. compliance with the Covenant. The committee recommended the following changes:

Accountability for past human rights violations;
Gun violence;
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay; and
National Security Agency Surveillance

In addition to the ICCPR treaty, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms. It provides an international code of conduct for law enforcement officials. While the code is not legally binding on the member States it does provide guidelines in hopes that States will adopt and implement aspects of the code domestically. According to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, law enforcement officials “shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or the defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, and that, in any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

The international standard is much higher than the U.S. standard. In the U.S. state law governs law enforcement officials. Each state has different rules and procedures that govern use of deadly force by law enforcement. This creates problems because there is a lack of consistent policy among the states. The Amnesty International USA reported “nine states fail to provide laws on use of deadly force by law enforcement and thirteen states have laws that fail to comply with the U.S. constitutional standard of use of deadly force by law enforcement.”

Use of deadly force laws within the U.S. do fall short of meeting the high standard provided by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms. Whether the U.S. should adopt such a high standard is open for debate. The challenge the U.S. faces is finding a balance between the international standard and maintaining its constitutional standard. It is apparent that there is a need to reform the laws that govern law enforcement official’s ability to use deadly force.

« Top of Article

« Back to the Home Page

International Judicial Monitor
© 2015 – The International Judicial Academy
with assistance from the American Society of International Law.

Editor: James G. Apple.
IJM welcomes comments, suggestions, and submissions.
Please contact the IJM editor at ijaworld@verizon.net.