Legality of Drone Strikes under International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law

Abstract

The recent emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones in contemporary warfare has reshaped the character of military conflict and has provoked significant legal and ethical issues. Although the use of drone technology is effective in targeting attack and lessening harm to military personnel, its use as cross-border targeted killings has undergone scrutiny that contradicts the provisions of the international laws. In this paper, the author analyzes the legality of drone strikes by applying two conceptions to the issue the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the International Human Rights Law (IHRL). It discusses the possibility of such operations to be justified within the framework of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, especially concerning such notions as sovereignty, distinction, proportionality, necessity. The paper uses the case studies of Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan in particular and based on the pertinent treaties, customary law and case studies to assess how states understand self-defence and counterterrorism mandates to justify the use of extraterritorial force. It also explores a clash between state security prerogatives and the right to life, showing a lack of accountability in the case where there is no effective oversight mechanism. This paper demonstrates, based on the analysis of the doctrinal legal texts and critical consideration of the UN reports and the academic discussions, that the majority of drone attacks are somewhere in the grey zone of law, which appears to be the failure of the existing international standards to govern the new types of remote conflict. At the end of the paper, a recommendation will be given to develop a general law framework that will make the system more transparent, accountable and adherent to the international requirements.