GAVIN HOOD PRODUCTIONS

MOVIE REVIEW

CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
MR. KHUSHAL MUKUND MADHAV
GURJAR PAREEK

ASST. PROFESSO B.A.LL.B(H)

ALS SEM - 6

AMITY LAW SCHOOL

GAVIN HOOD PRODUCTIONS

A MOVIE ABOUT
MODERN WARFARE

2015
 MOVIE REVIEW

ABOUT
THIS
MOVIE
Katherine, a British
colonel, in charge of a
state-of-the-art
multinational
operation to eliminate
Al-Shabaab terrorists
in Nairobi, Kenya, is in a
dilemma when an
innocent girl enters the
kill zone.

SHOWCASES THE ISSUES

RELATED TO WAR, HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, ETC.

THE CAST

Helen Mirren Chad Gibbons Daniel Gallego

as Col. Katherine as Lt. Frank as Steve Watts
Play the role of a kind- Play the role of a kind- Play the role of a kind-
hearted female lead. hearted male lead. hearted male lead.
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW

"Eye in the Sky" is a 2015 thriller movie directed by Gavin

Hood. The movie is set in the context of the ongoing war on
terror, and it follows a team of military and intelligence officials
as they make a crucial decision about a drone strike in Nairobi,
Kenya.
The story centers on Colonel Katherine Powell, a UK-based
military officer who is leading a mission to capture a group of
high-profile terrorists who are meeting in a safe house in
Nairobi. Powell's plan is to use a drone to launch a missile at the
house, but as she and her team monitor the situation, they
discover that a young girl has entered the kill zone, and their
decision to carry out the strike becomes much more complicated.
As the situation becomes increasingly tense, Powell must weigh
the moral and ethical implications of her actions, while her
superiors and colleagues grapple with the political fallout that
could result from the strike. The movie explores the complex
issues of modern warfare and the moral dilemmas that arise when
technology and human lives collide. This movie poses really
serious questions pertaining to human rights and how modern
warfare affects this aspect.

IMDB : - 7.3 / 10
 "Eye in the Sky" is a 2015 film that explores

L
the ethical and legal dilemmas surrounding
the use of drone technology in modern
warfare. The film raises several legal

E
questions, including issues related to
targeted killings, civilian casualties, and the

G
use of force in international law.

One of the central legal issues in the film is

A
the use of targeted killings. The film
depicts a situation in which a British-led
drone operation is targeting a group of

L high-level terrorists in Kenya. However,

the operation is complicated by the
presence of a young girl who is selling
bread near the target location. The film
raises the question of whether the targeted

P
killing of the terrorists is legally justified if
it risks killing the innocent civilian. Under
international law, targeted killings are only

O lawful if they are necessary to protect

against an imminent threat and if they are

V
conducted in accordance with the
principles of proportionality and necessity.
The film shows how difficult it can be to
apply these principles in practice,
particularly when civilians are at risk.
Another legal issue raised by the film is the use of force in
international law. The film depicts a situation in which the
British government is considering launching a drone strike
against a group of terrorists in Kenya without the consent of
the Kenyan government. This raises questions about the
legality of the use of force under international law, particularly
the UN Charter. Under the Charter, the use of force is only
lawful in self-defense or with the authorization of the Security
Council. The film raises the question of whether the British-led
operation would be a violation of the Kenyan government's
territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Finally, the film raises the issue of civilian casualties in armed

conflict. The film shows how difficult it can be to avoid
civilian casualties when using drone technology in warfare.
The film depicts a situation in which the British-led operation
is targeting a group of terrorists in a residential area, and the
presence of civilians makes it difficult to avoid collateral
damage. This raises questions about the obligation of states to
take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties, as
required by international humanitarian law.
 T I M MisE aR M
"Eye in the Sky" A N I that
movie N D Udepicts
S T R I Eseveral
S potential
human rights violations in the context of modern warfare.
Some of the human rights violations that the movie portrays
are:

Right to life: The movie raises the question of whether targeted

killings are legally justified and ethically acceptable. The
British-led drone operation in the movie is targeting high-level
terrorists, but it risks killing a young girl who is selling bread
near the target location. This raises questions about the right to
life of the innocent civilian, who is not directly involved in the
conflict.

Right to privacy: The use of drone technology in the movie

raises concerns about the right to privacy. The drone
technology used in the movie is capable of capturing images
and sounds from a distance, which can potentially violate the
right to privacy of individuals in the target area.

SHORT MOVIE
 TIMMERMAN INDUSTRIES
Right to due process: The movie raises questions about the
right to due process in targeted killings. The British-led
operation in the movie is targeting high-level terrorists, but it
is unclear whether these individuals have been given a fair trial
or have been properly identified.

Right to a fair trial: The movie also raises questions about the
right to a fair trial for those suspected of terrorism. The British-
led operation in the movie is targeting high-level terrorists, but
it is unclear whether these individuals have been given a fair
trial or have been properly identified.

Protection of civilians: The movie raises concerns about the

protection of civilians in armed conflicts. The presence of a
young girl selling bread near the target location in the movie
raises questions about the obligation of states to take all feasible
precautions to avoid civilian casualties, as required by
international humanitarian law.

SHORT MOVIE
Human rights and modern warfare are closely
interconnected, as the use of advanced technologies and
tactics in modern warfare can have significant
implications for the protection of human rights. In recent
decades, there has been a growing awareness of the need
to respect human rights in times of conflict, and
international humanitarian law has been developed to
regulate the conduct of armed conflicts.

One of the key challenges in modern warfare is the use of

advanced technologies, such as drones and cyberweapons,
which can have far-reaching effects on civilian
populations. Drones, for example, have been used to
carry out targeted killings of suspected terrorists, but their
use has also resulted in civilian casualties and raised
concerns about the legality and ethics of such tactics.
Similarly, cyberweapons can be used to disrupt critical
infrastructure, but their use can also have unintended
consequences and lead to the violation of human rights.
Another challenge in modern warfare is the use of non-
state actors, such as militias and terrorist groups, who
often operate outside of the traditional framework of
international humanitarian law. These groups may be less
likely to respect human rights and can carry out acts of
violence against civilian populations.

To address these challenges, there is a need for greater

accountability and transparency in the conduct of
modern warfare. This can include efforts to improve the
training of military personnel, to develop guidelines for
the use of advanced technologies in conflict, and to
strengthen the mechanisms for monitoring and reporting
on human rights violations.

Overall, the protection of human rights in times of

conflict remains a significant challenge, but efforts
to address this issue are ongoing, and there is
growing recognition of the importance of respecting
human rights in modern warfare.
There is currently no international treaty specifically
focused on drone use in modern warfare, but there are
several international legal frameworks that apply to the
use of drones and other advanced technologies in armed
conflicts. The United Nations Charter and international
humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions
and Additional Protocols, provide the basic legal
framework for the use of force in armed conflicts. These
frameworks require that military operations be conducted
in accordance with the principles of necessity,
proportionality, and distinction between combatants and
civilians. These principles apply to the use of drones and
other advanced technologies in armed conflicts.

In conclusion, while there is currently no specific

international treaty on drone use in modern warfare,
there are international legal frameworks and
guidelines that apply to the use of drones and other
advanced technologies in armed conflicts. There are
also ongoing efforts to develop a more specific legal
framework to regulate the use of drones and other
autonomous weapons systems in armed conflicts.
Privacy concerns: The use of drones and other aerial
surveillance technologies can raise significant privacy
concerns, particularly if the technology is used to gather
information about individuals without their consent. There are
also concerns about the potential for abuse, such as the use of
surveillance technologies to monitor political dissidents or
journalists.

Accuracy and bias: Aerial surveillance technologies may not

always provide accurate information, and there is a risk of bias
and discrimination in the way that the technology is used.

Legal and ethical issues: The use of aerial surveillance

technologies raises legal and ethical questions, particularly
around the use of force and the right to privacy. The use of
drones for targeted killings, for example, has been the subject
of significant debate and controversy.

Cost and resources: The use of aerial surveillance

technologies can be expensive, and there may be concerns
about the cost-effectiveness of these technologies, particularly
in comparison to other approaches to public safety and
security.
In the conclusion of "Eye in the Sky," after much debate and
ethical considerations, Colonel Katherine Powell (played by Helen
Mirren) ultimately gives the order to launch the missile strike,
even though it will likely result in the death of the young girl
caught in the kill zone. However, at the last minute, the little girl
is able to move out of harm's way, and the missile hits the house,
killing the terrorists inside.
The aftermath of the strike is shown in a series of scenes that reveal
the emotional toll it has taken on the various characters involved.
We see the grief of the girl's family, the anguish of the drone pilot
who fired the missile, and the conflict of conscience experienced
by the various decision-makers.

The movie ends with the reminder that the use of drone strikes in
modern warfare is a complex and controversial issue, with no easy
answers. It forces the audience to question the morality and ethics
of using such technology in conflict, and to consider the real-life
consequences of these decisions.

Overall, "Eye in the Sky" is a thought-provoking and

emotionally charged movie that highlights the
complexities of modern warfare and the difficult moral
dilemmas that arise in such situations.