Challenges Posed by Drones to International Humanitarian Law

Recent years have witnessed the escalating utilization of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, in military operations. This usage sparks legal controversy regarding its alignment with international humanitarian law, also referred to as the “law of war.” An examination of international humanitarian law indicates that the battleground, under the guise of political motivations, has expanded globally, and the fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality have been disregarded. Bombing civilian populations from the air under the pretext of pursuing terrorists has emerged as the prevailing practice, while attacks lacking a clear military advantage are dismissed as ineffective and irrelevant.

Given that drone strikes from the air have the potential to swiftly violate numerous tenets of both public international law and international humanitarian law, the age-old discourse on the legality of aerial warfare may be resurrected following the series of calamities wrought by the indiscriminate use of drone weaponry. While the conversation may currently be overshadowed by calls for adherence to the laws of war as simply a novel armament, as stipulated in Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, the clause addressing new weapons dictates that “In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.”  

The utilization of drones in military operations is a contemporary development that poses numerous legal challenges. Further endeavors are necessary to confront these challenges and guarantee States' adherence to international humanitarian law. While international humanitarian law does not explicitly forbid the use of drones, nations employing them must abide by the regulations and principles outlined in this body of law.

The term "drones" or "unmanned aerial vehicle" refers to an aircraft that is remotely controlled, and at times, autonomous. This term has been the subject of significant criticism and debate due to various issues. Since the aircraft is operated by a real person remotely through devices, and this individual bears legal responsibility and control over its actions as well as the selection of targets, it is argued that it should be referred to as unmanned aircraft, as suggested by American military and technical expert Don Rassler. These aircraft are commonly known as “drones,” a term derived from the name of the male bee (Drones).

• Difficulty distinguishing between military targets and civilian targets: Drone operators may struggle to differentiate between individuals and objects on the ground, potentially resulting in civilian casualties.
• Lack of transparency in drone usage: Drones are frequently employed in covert operations, making it challenging to oversee their adherence to international humanitarian law.

• Lack of accountability: Holding states or individuals responsible for violations of international humanitarian law through drone use may prove to be a challenging task.

Efforts are currently underway to tackle the legal challenges associated with drone use, with key initiatives including:

• Establishing international standards to regulate drone operations: Several countries and international bodies are collaborating to create global guidelines for controlling drone use, which include protocols for distinguishing between military and civilian targets.
• Improving transparency in drone activities: International organizations are calling for greater openness in drone operations, advocating for the disclosure of information on missions conducted with these devices.

• Strengthening accountability measures: Calls are being made for the development of mechanisms that guarantee accountability for states or individuals involved in violating international humanitarian law through drone actions.

Regarding international accountability, firstly, states utilizing these aircraft globally impose arbitrary death sentences without attributing responsibility to the targets or, at best, viewing civilians as mere collateral damage. Secondly, numerous infractions perpetrated by armed drones lack transparency and accurate targeting; nonetheless, there has not been a single case where perpetrators were scrutinized with requisite transparency, nor were liability, compensation, or penalties established for the offenders.

Hence, the execution of targeted killings through armed drones has become a simplistic task for the perpetrators, viewed as an imperative action devoid of regulatory concerns. It is crucial that the usage of armed drones continues to adhere to international humanitarian law, as any deviation would challenge the core tenets of this legal. The application of armed drones must comply with international humanitarian law, irrespective of any military necessity justifications