Whose “drone revolution”? Expert-media gaps in perceptions of drone warfare

Scholars tend to evaluate U.S. presidents’ use of drone warfare in materialist or social terms. Rather, this chapter argues that presidents’ use of drones derives from strategic and legal-normative frames that integrate these considerations. These frames shape presidents’ decisions to use drone warfare. By applying this blended framework to President Barack Obama’s use of drones in Libya in 2011, as well as President Donald Trump’s use of a strike against Qasem Suleimani in 2020, this chapter shows that presidents’ decisions to employ drone warfare are made to achieve both state and social goals. The balance between these aims is informed by, and constitutive of, presidents’ strategic and legal-normative frames. This suggests that the perceived (il)legitimacy of drone warfare may relate more to the impact of strikes on the relationship between norms and interests, and not the military or political nature of targets, as some ethicists claim.

The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones in counterterrorism has changed the face of warfare and is challenging international law on a number of levels. This article assesses some of those challenges in the context of the Obama administration’s justifications to use drones for targeted killing. It focuses on the US as a norm entrepreneur that purposefully works to alter prevalent norms related to the use of drones in counterterrorism efforts. The article analyses normative developments and the meaning-in-use of existing legal provisions that are invoked to justify US policy in this area. By focusing on norm entrepreneurs, this article moves away from purely structural accounts of normative change towards a stronger emphasis on actors and the role of agency. Rather than understanding US drone policy as violating international law, this article argues that the Obama administration was acting as a norm entrepreneur in its counterterrorism efforts, aiming to change the meaning of a number of international legal concepts to justify its policy decisions.

The purpose of this review article is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a recent special issue of Small Wars & Insurgencies, “The impacts of robotics and autonomous systems (RAS) across the conflict spectrum,” as it relates to the case of drone warfare. The special issue both reinforces and expands on the preceding “three waves” of drone warfare literature. Specifically, contributing authors further explain the proliferation of drones among states, problematize their effectiveness, and unpack the normative implications of their use. The authors also raise important questions regarding the proliferation of drones to non-state actors, the social-psychology of leaders’ use of drones, and scholars’ inconsistent understanding of the rightful conduct of drone strikes by states in regional and global contexts. The special issue, therefore, constitutes an important inflection point in the extant literature on drone warfare. It sets the conditions for a future research agenda that requires scholars to better link the competing logics that inform states’ use of drone strikes to the trade-offs imposed on global order, as well as the managerial recourses that are available to member states of international society.

As drone warfare began to proliferate in the early twenty-first century, a legitimation contest over the meaning of the cardinal jus in bello principles of customary International Humanitarian Law—distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and humanity—that govern targeted killing heated up between world and international society. In this contest, world and international society were represented by the International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.) and U.S., respectively. These two consequential agents in global politics offered distinct visions on the implications of drone warfare for the global legal order. The I.C.R.C. produced two interpretative guides in 2005 and 2009 that attempted to restrict states’ use of drone warfare. The U.S. unveiled a manual in 2015 that justified its more permissive use of drones during active hostilities. This chapter focuses on this legitimation contest by comparing and contrasting the competing visions of the I.C.R.C. and U.S. over the future global legal order.

The future role of US drones has been the subject of considerable controversy due to their use in remote parts of the world to target individuals designated as terrorists. In his confirmation hearings, Secretary of State John Kerry expressed concerns about overseas perceptions of such activities by stating that, American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone. (1) Additionally, within the United States, many issues surrounding drone use clearly need scrupulous legal and ethical consideration. Underlying all these factors, however, must be a consideration of the issue of military effectiveness. Regulating the use of a marginally valuable weapons-system is easy, while regulating a highly effective system in a way that forecloses options can be difficult since more is at stake. Careful consideration must be given to how effectively these systems can serve US interests as well as the negative consequences of overseas backlash to their use when evaluating their optimal place in US strategy. In the case of Yemen, drones are not popular with the local population, but they do appear to have been stunningly successful in achieving goals that support the United States and Yemeni national interests by helping to defeat the radical group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). This organization is one of the most successful affiliates of the original al Qaeda group led by Osama bin Laden until his death in 2011. AQAP became prominent in the early 2000s when it began terrorist operations in Saudi Arabia, though it was ultimately defeated in that country. Following this defeat, AQAP retained its name and regrouped in Yemen, merging with the local al Qaeda organization operating there in 2009. AQAP (which Yemenis simply call al Qaeda) has a recent history of challenging the Yemeni government as well as a long record of attempting to execute spectacular terrorist events in the United States. This agenda has made it vital for the United States to oppose AQAP and help the Yemeni government in a variety of ways, including drone use, when appropriate. Clearly fearing a domestic backlash, former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who remained in office until early 2012, consistently denied his government was allowing the United States to conduct drone operations over Yemen. Saleh's denials regarding drones could hardly be considered credible since some extremely high profile strikes occurred while he was president. Of special importance was a successful February 2002 missile attack on six senior al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. The Saleh government originally claimed these individuals were killed in a Yemeni Air Force bombing attack, but this story unraveled after a senior US official revealed information about the drone strike during a CNN interview. (2) In response to domestic pressure created by the CNN disclosure, Saleh eventually acknowledged that the February 2002 strike was conducted by a US drone, but he did not admit to any later strikes by the time he left power ten years later. (3) The president's continuing denials were almost universally disbelieved as there had been numerous Yemeni and international news reports of US drone warfare against AQAP, often citing seemingly credible sources on background. These press reports included a discussion of a fatal September 2011 US drone attack on AQAP planner Anwar al Awlaki. In response to such information, Saleh went so far as to claim that Yemeni forces had killed Awlaki, although virtually no one took such statements seriously. (4) In sharp contrast to Saleh, current Yemeni President Abed Rabbu Hadi has spoken glowingly of US drones used in Yemen, describing them as an effective way to strike the enemy while minimizing collateral damage to innocent civilians through precision strikes. (5) Despite Hadi's assurances, drone use remains a hotly contested domestic issue in Yemen. Achievements in Yemen Enabled by Drones The history of US drone activity in Yemen is still subject to considerable secrecy and cannot be written in full until more information has been declassified and released. …

Scholars often reduce America's use of drones to a bureaucratic process. While this enables them to recognise shifts in America's use of strikes since 2002, they cannot adequately explain such change over time. Rather, I argue that America's use of strikes is a function of presidents' decisions. Presidents adopt strategic and legal-normative cognitive frames that shape their decisions to use strikes. I use this typology to study crucial and pathway cases during the Obama and Trump administrations. I show that presidents' decisions to use drones are made to achieve state and social goals. The balance between these aims is informed by, and constitutive of, presidents' strategic and legal-normative frames. Understanding America's use of drones as a leader-driven practice suggests that the legitimacy of strikes may relate more to their impact on the relationship between norms and interests, and not the military or political nature of targets, as some ethicists claim.

Local wars and military conflicts are one of the main threats to both national and international security. The article emphasizes that international experience in resolving such conflicts requires both diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions, humanitarian aid, etc. At the same time, local wars are a source of instability that spreads to neighboring countries and even other continents. Modern methods of warfare, including hybrid operations, cyber attacks, the use of drones and other technological innovations, are changing traditional approaches to military strategy. In response to these challenges, international organizations, such as the United Nations, the European Union, and some other states, should focus more on resolving local conflicts, seeking effective strategies to reduce violence and prevent the escalation of armed confrontations. Translated with DeepL.com (free version)The author points out that the vast majority of scholars only draw a line between local wars and military conflicts in general terms, bringing these non-identical forms of armed violence closer together. At the same time, the difference between them can be determined using the criteria of qualitative and quantitative analysis. In addition, the international legal aspect distinguishes a military conflict from a war. The author of the article emphasizes the importance of human rights in the process of peaceful settlement of armed conflicts. It is noted that the protection of human rights during and after a conflict is an important condition for establishing stable peace in the world. For Ukraine, it is now critical to ensure human rights both in the occupied territories and those under state control. This includes the proper treatment of civilians, protection of the rights of military personnel and persons in illegal detention, as well as the rehabilitation of victims of the conflict through access to medical, legal, and social services. Based on the results of the analysis of the experience of other foreign countries, the author concludes that our country now needs to create a clear strategy for legal rehabilitation and reintegration after the end of the conflict, as well as to establish effective work of justice institutions that could ensure stability after the termination of martial law during the period of reconstruction of the country.

The conflict in Ukraine is characterised by extensive use of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonlyknown as drones, by various parties involved in the conflict. This article examines the evolvinglandscape of drone warfare in the context of the war in Ukraine and the corresponding changes inlegal regulations governing their use.Drawing upon a comprehensive review of existing literature, legal documents and news reports,this study explores the historical development of drone technology, its utilization in militaryoperations and its specific application within the Ukrainian conflict. It analyses legal frameworksgoverning drone warfare, including international humanitarian law (IHL), international humanrights law (IHRL) and domestic regulations, and assesses their effectiveness in addressing thechallenges posed by drones in armed conflict.Through detailed case studies and empirical evidence, the article examines specific incidents, tacticsand strategies involving drones in the conflict in Ukraine, highlighting their impact on militaryoperations, civilian population and compliance with legal regulations. Ethical considerations andhuman rights implications associated with the use of drones are also explored, with focus on issuessuch as civilian casualties, targeted killings and surveillance practices.The conducted research is predominantly of an applied nature – it enriches the existing sciencewith new conclusions resulting from the analysis of available research. The aim of the researchis to answer the complementary question in the title (what) is the impact of UAVs on the war inUkraine in terms of impact on armed conflict and legal challenges. In the conducted research usewas made of a number of scientific research methods in a holistic way, the main ones being: themethod of analysis and criticism of literature listed in the bibliography, the method of individualcases and document examination methods. This article contributes to scholarly understanding of the interconnections between technology,warfare, law and provides insights into the complex dynamics of modern conflict and the evolvingrole of drones in it. It underscores the importance of adapting legal regulations to keep pace withtechnological advancements and emerging security threats and calls for greater attention to theethical dimensions of drone warfare in shaping future policy and practice.The study identifies key challenges, debates and controversies surrounding the use of dronesin armed conflict, including questions of accountability, transparency and the protection offundamental rights and freedoms. It concludes with policy recommendations aimed at addressingthese challenges and ensuring the responsible and ethical use of drones in accordance withinternational legal norms and humanitarian principles.

It is clear the United States and other major powers see drone warfare as the wave of the future. Today more than 70 countries possess drone technology and many others are seeking to acquire it. It is expected that within 20 years, there will be swarms of drones and many autonomous fighters and bombers in use around the globe. If the trends continue as anticipated, these drones will usher in a ‘boundless and borderless war without end’. The development of technological improvements will eventually lead to a militarisation of foreign policy and unnecessary conflicts. While the circumstances in Pakistan are unique, the questions surrounding the US drone programme in non‐combat zones such as Pakistan raise important issues regarding how drone use should be governed in the future. This article is an attempt to analyse legal and ethical issues raised by the US use of drone technology in non‐combat zones such as Pakistan, and it looks into its underpinnings and also its repercussions as tool in prospective warfare.

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles or “drones,” as part of the United States’ (US) targeted killing (TK) program dramatically increased after the War on Terror (WoT) was declared. With the ambiguous nature and parameters of the WoT, and stemming from the postulation of numerous low-level, niche-, and other securitizations producing a monolithic threat, US drone operations now constitute a vital stitch in the extensive fabric of US counterterrorism policy. This article employs the theories of securitization and macrosecuritization as discussed by Buzan (1991, 2006), and Buzan and Wæver (2009) to understand targeted killing, by means of weaponized drones, as an extraordinary measure according to the Copenhagen School’s interpretation. An overarching securitization and the use of the “security” label warrants the emergency action of targeted killing through the use of drones as an extraordinary measure. We argue that the WoT serves as a means of securitizing global terrorism as a threat significant enough to warrant the use of drone warfare as an extraordinary use of force. By accepting the WoT as a securitization process we can reasonably accept that the US’ response(s) against that threat are also securitized and therefore become extraordinary measures.

The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on international security is unmistakable, as machines are now capable of undertaking tasks traditionally reserved for human intelligence. This shift brings forth a myriad of challenges in international security, affecting both conventional military capabilities and hybrid threats. Simultaneously, AI presents new opportunities to address these challenges, influencing key aspects of collective defense, cooperative security systems and crisis management. Given its profound implications for prosperity and security, effective management of AI requires collaborative efforts. The scope of promise and peril associated with AI is vast, necessitating collective action to mitigate security risks and leverage its potential to restructure operational processes, support missions, and streamline operations. This paper primarily focuses on introducing drones equipped with artificial intelligence and autonomous learning capabilities, exploring their applications in military contexts. It examines the potential for the independent use of AI-driven drones in both combat and non-combat army operations. By leveraging GIS, C5IRS (Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber-Defense, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), and AI, these drones provide a significant battlefield advantage by operating autonomously and adapting to dynamic ground situations. In a battlespace where the amalgamation of human, information, and physical components is crucial for strategic advantage, interoperability emerges as a vital factor.

This textbook anthology of selected readings on pressing Middle East security concerns serves as an invaluable single-volume assessment of critical security issues in nations such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The issues and current events of the Greater Middle East continue to hold deep implications for American geopolitical interests in the region as they have for many decades. An ideal resource for students in undergraduate courses on the Middle East and related regions as well as students in graduate programs of international studies or security studies, this textbook anthologizes recent, insightful analyses by top scholars on trends and events in the Middle East that bear crucially on regional and global security considerations, covering topics like Iran's nuclear ambitions; the rise, ebb, and resurgence of Al Qaeda; and the war in Syria. The essays address concerns that include the re-imposition of military rule in Egypt; the current status of Palestinian-Israeli relations; the civil war and proposed chemical inspections in Syria; Sunni-Shiite conflict and the revitalized al Qaeda presence in Iraq and the Sunni resurgence in Iraq and Syria; and the on-again-off-again international monitoring of nuclear facilities in Iran, along with discussions of that country's connections to the Syrian regime and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The use of drone strikes as antiterrorist weapons and their use within U.S. and international law also receive specific attention. Each reading is summarized and contextualized by a concise introduction that serves to enhance the integration of the individual readings across the book. Original source notes are included with each chapter as guides to further reading, and numerous maps provide an essential sense of place. The book also includes a glossary of terms and a register of brief biographies of significant persons.

Summary The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been widely recognized as one of the most significant threats to peace and security in Europe since World War II. The large-scale proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles in this conflict reveals how drones and autonomous weapons systems are transforming warfare. At the same time, they are raising concerns about the way conflicts are being fought, and how international peace and security is being secured through international humanitarian law. This article therefore provides a deep empirical analysis of the types of drones being deployed in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and their specific contributions to the conflict. The study provides several charts that indicate the make of the drones being used, their type, and the function of each drone employed by both parties to the conflict. The charts highlight various parameters such as maximum speed, endurance, and altitude capabilities. The empirical part of the article then feeds into the second part of the article which delves into the question of whether the drones being used there meet the requirements of the principles of distinction and proportionality as mandated in international humanitarian law. It argues that there seems to be evidence of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, and investigations need to be carried out to determine whether there should be accountability. The article argues that the artificial intelligence being used in drones make them distinct from ordinary weapons as it is their autonomy to make decisions which ensures that accountability for IHL violations is problematic. The article argues that IHL ought to be reformed to deal with these new warfare capabilities.

Rapid technological advancements have driven the increasing complexity of warfare, positioning unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, at the forefront of military operations globally. This study examines Nigeria's adoption of drone technology in its fight against insurgencies, banditry, and communal violence. As part of its evolving security strategy, Nigeria has integrated drones into its military operations to enhance intelligence gathering, surveillance, and precision strikes. Despite the operational benefits, the use of drones raises ethical concerns, especially related to civilian casualties, and poses challenges due to limited transparency and regulatory oversight. The study employed a systematic literature review (SLR), drawing on secondary data sources and reports that address the role, effectiveness, and challenges of drones in Nigeria's defense strategies. Key findings highlight that Nigeria's military, particularly the Air Force, has successfully deployed both indigenous and foreign-acquired drones, such as the Amebo, Gulma, and Chinese CH-4, to bolster its intelligence and combat operations. However, the lack of a robust legal framework and the need for improved training and data processing infrastructure hinder the full realization of drone technology's potential. Based on the findings, the study recommends enhancing Nigeria's regulatory framework to ensure ethical drone deployment, investing in indigenous UAV development, and improving inter-agency coordination for more efficient use of drone capabilities. These steps are crucial to ensuring that drones can effectively contribute to Nigeria's national security while minimizing the associated risks.

Background: Modern warfare is increasingly characterised by the use of drone technology to manage and operate aerial systems for surveillance and target identification. Initially, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were primarily used for surveillance. However, their active involvement in military operations has raised significant legal questions regarding their status under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The expanded use of drone strikes beyond conventional war zones has brought to light critical issues related to state sovereignty, the principle of distinction, and the principle of proportionality in armed conflict. With the growing reliance on drones in conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East by the United States and Israel, concerns have emerged regarding civilian safety and military accountability. Methods: This study employs a literature review approach and conducts doctrinal legal research, drawing primarily on primary sources such as the United Nations Charter and secondary sources, including case law like the Corfu Channel Case and Nicaragua v. United States. Journal articles, academic research papers, and reports from human rights organisations were analysed to assess the application of International Humanitarian Law in the context of drone warfare. Case studies from Pakistan, Gaza, and Yemen were examined to evaluate the practical implementation of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. These examples were used to assess legal standards and state compliance in minimising civilian casualties. Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals that while drones provide strategic advantages, their use often violates the fundamental principles of IHL. Drone strikes in Yemen and Gaza have demonstrated instances where civilian casualties were inadequately avoided, raising serious concerns about adherence to the principles of proportionality and distinction. The study also highlights that states employing drone strikes, particularly the U.S. and Israel, bear accountability for civilian deaths despite the lack of a robust legal framework to address such issues. To address these challenges, there is a pressing need for international laws that enhance oversight and ensure compliance with IHL, particularly in safeguarding civilians during armed conflict. Consequently, there is a growing call for stronger international regulation to ensure that the use of force aligns with the protection of civilian populations.