Disproportionate Police Militarization at Standing Rock Violated International Law

Abstract

This paper examines the law enforcement response to the 2016 Standing Rock NoDAPL1 protests and evaluates whether this response violated international human rights law. Following an assessment of increasing militarization in U.S. policing, relevant international human rights law doctrine will be discussed. In particular, UN Human Rights declarations prohibit disproportionate armaments in policing, armed response to unlawful but unarmed protests, the deprivation of enumerated human rights, and the use of a hostilities paradigm suited to the battlefield instead of a community-caretaking focused law enforcement paradigm. The militarization at Standing Rock took the form of 76 law enforcement agencies coordinating with military contractors, both armed with less-lethal force to suppress anti-pipeline protests. This paper illustrates that the law enforcement response to the Standing Rock protests was disproportionate and in violation of customary international human rights law norms for policing, including the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), and more broadly in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). These violations eroded relationships between Indigenous people, environmentalists, and the federal government, set a problematic example for foreign and domestic law enforcement departments, and endangered domestic compliance with international human rights law. In order to uphold international law, future police work should be mindful of the potential for international human rights law violation and averse to militarization disproportionate to the risks posed to officers.