Over the course of the last week, protests have erupted across the United States in response to Minneapolis police killing George Floyd, a black man. In a show of solidarity, thousands have taken to the streets to demand justice for Mr. Floyd and to protest against ongoing police brutality. Whilst the majority of demonstrations remain peaceful, others have resulted in violent clashes between police and protestors. This raises the question whether the force demonstrated by law enforcement across the country contributes more to the acceleration of violence than it does to its suppression. 

The use of force exercised by law enforcement when policing assemblies in the US is regulated by state, federal and international legal frameworks such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Although not legally binding, the United Nations (UN) Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials is also a highly influential source on the limitations that exist when exercising force. Recent events demonstrate potential breaches by police officers of several international legal principles underpinning the use of force - as prescribed by UN guidelines - including necessity and proportionality.

METHODS OF CROWD CONTROL

US police forces relied upon “non-lethal weapons” as a method of crowd control during recent protests, with officers deploying rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray and stun grenades. Such weapons enable the control of crowds without using weapons intended to be lethal. However, the potential harm these “non-lethal” weapons pose should not be underestimated. Reports show that their use can result in permanent disabilities, serious wounds and even fatalities.

As Amnesty USA highlights, “weapons such as tear gas, should not be used where people are confined in an area and not in a way that can cause lasting harm (such as at too close range, or directly aimed at people’s faces).” International guidelines further state that the use of “less-lethal” weapons should be considered “a measure of last resort” when dispersing crowds, with concern over their unlawful use emphasised by numerous UN Special Rapporteurs.

ILLEGAL USES OF FORCE 

As well as the use of weapons, state security officials have exercised other means of disproportionate force against non-threatening protestors. In New York, a police vehicle plowed into crowds, knocking over bystanders. A police officer in Floridawas caught shoving an elderly black woman, already on her knees, to the ground; whilst in Salt Lake City officers pushed over an elderly man using a cane to walk.  These are only a few examples of incidents of unchecked police force taking place across the US. Although some officers have been reprimanded, many have avoided sanctions.

According to guidelines issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, during assemblies officers must differentiate between violent and peaceful individuals. This use of heavy-handed policing tactics against non-violent protestors is not only illegal and unnecessary but unsurprisingly fuels and instigates further retaliatory violence, contradicting the very purpose of police presence. 

INTERNATIONAL POLICY OBLIGATIONS 

During the policing of non-violent assemblies, the use of force must not be used unless unavoidable. To ensure compliance with international guidelines, force exercised by state officials must be of absolute necessity, proportionate in the given context and have a basis in law. Failure to meet these standards could result in a breach of an individual's right to life or right to freedom from ill-treatment, as enshrined in the ICCPR - a covenant that the US has ratified and ultimately has a duty to uphold and implement. 

However, in the US, domestic laws do not align with international standards, allowing officers to pursue force in accordance with a much more lenient set of rules. A submission by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights found that, “not a single state law in the United States governing the use of lethal force by the police complies with international standards, and even the federal constitutional standard falls short of what international human rights law requires.” 

The submission points to three areas in which US law is lacking in protections. Firstly, the standard of “reasonableness” does not differentiate between lethal and non-lethal force, essentially conflating the two. Secondly, this lack of legal standard separates US law from international law which in turn creates inconsistency in the application of rules. Thirdly, US laws, unlike international standards, do not require officers to exhaust peaceful measures before turning to force. These oversights contribute to a permissive body of standards that fail to effectively regulate and restrict police force in line with international targets and likely exacerbate growing tensions and violence in the US. 

Christie graduated with an LLM in International Law and Security from the University of Glasgow. She focused on areas such as nuclear weapons, cyber security, counter-terrorism, and the international courts system. Most recently, she interned at the International Bar Association undertaking legal research and policy work.

LinkedIn