Essay: Combat drones and their legal implications

This research paper explores the combat drones and their legal implication. A question is raised on how one ought to make decisions regarding war and use of high-level technology. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) also known as “drones” have taken the warfare to the next level by allowing compilation of different techniques for armed attacks. The revolution has demanded an explanation from ethical and legal perspectives. Use of drones raises foggy questions on moral values. More specifically, the recent use of combat drones by the US in war is analyzed as well as its compliance with diplomacy and legal theory in a just war. According to international law and just war principles, unmanned attacks without identifying the target is immoral and should be condemned. This research paper will tend to explain the technology used with the drones and the ethical consideration of this newest technology in the war zones. It is argued that their use without compliance with the just war theory presents a significant challenge to the legal and ethical standards of armed conflict.
Combat drones refer to the unmanned flying war crafts that are remotely piloted. The military uses them in areas where manned aircraft seem to be a risk, especially in war zones. They are more like a small radio-controlled toy helicopter with an average weight of 32,000 pounds (Sehrawat, 2017). Vehicles that meet these criteria are also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs). They are associated with high economic growth (Kaufman, 2016). The debate concerning the legal theory on the use of combat drones become much popular since May 2013 when President Barack Obama announced that their usage is part of just war. In his discourse at the National Defense University, he described the US drone campaign in Yemen and Pakistan as a strategy of last resort in self-defense. It was during the Obama’s administration when drones program were launched as a legal and moral alternative that can replace Special Forces in capturing or killing terrorists even in states where America is not formally in war (Boyle, 2015). Combat drones use more advanced technology to handle various forms of conflicts against terrorists. However, it needs to be guided by different rules and standards to make it sound and ethically acceptable.
The article by Atherton (2014) explains the history of combat drones which goes back to more than a century. The technology started with the use of unmanned “aerial torpedo” that was developed during World War I, but it was never used. It was invented by Kettering Bug. Despite the use of surveillance cameras, the drones failed to meet the distinction principle as it could not identify the targets of the drone strike. This lowered the accuracy of the device and hence raising many legal and ethical questions. The use of combat drones is traceable back in the 1980s during the cold war and more particularly in Vietnam. Wolfgang (2013) describes drones as a weapon and at the same time as a spy. Its controversy is surrounded by different arguments on the economic value. The private sectors have capitalized on this emerging technology of the unmanned aerial vehicles and thus creating more jobs. The industry is expected to experience enormous growth by the year 2025, and it is projected to be among the leading commercial groups. However, this would be attained if the use of combat drones sticks in the necessary legal framework. The level of compliance with the existing laws has raised many questions which have led to increased criticism of the technology.
Despite the criticism, combat drones are seen as the future of warfare, and their usage is increasing more rapidly especially in the US. The United States of America is one of the countries that are leading in the use of modern unmanned aerial vehicles. The human rights watch is also taking the confident stance of this new weapon to convey a skeptic perspective of the phenomena (N\”{a}\”{a}f, 2011). Further practice and rhetoric are vital in encouraging the legality of the method of international law and the motivating factors that results to their usage. The validity of the drones differs from one context to another. The legal debate concerning the use of drones has attracted the interest of many scholars who have to tend to apply the philosophical argument to differentiate between morality and the law. The concept of Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart has also been used to explain the context much better. H. L. A. Hart became the professor of law at Oxford University in 1952, and he dominated the transformation of the legal theory. His article published in 1958 explores the positivism and distinction of law and morals which most people tend to confuse more often. Hart defends the field of jurisprudence from the various criticisms raised from the moral principles.
Positivist theories are different from the morals, and it is essential to distinguish between the two when deciding what is right or wrong. According to Hurt (1958), existing law is enforceable whether we like it or not. It is the only way by which we regulate our approbation and disapprobation. Laws are essential in maintaining order in society and promoting equity. Some may argue that morals and God’s provisions are more superior to the law while in reality these are considered as human laws that are not valid in contrary to them. For instance, only the believers might observe the Divine Laws unlike the laws in the legal framework which are universal. Similarly, the moral values may vary from one group to another depending on the cultural setting. Thus, this makes that major distinction between morals and laws.
On the other hand, Dworkin strives to explain the relationship between the two concepts. He criticizes Hurt’s argument by saying that laws must fulfill the specific social goals of an individual. The lawyers must handle the technical problems for better support of action with relevant evidence. These are regardless of the overall agreement on case proceeding (Dworkin, 1969). The concept of legal positivism is used to elaborate the question of whether the law is determined by morality. Dworkin (1969) connoted that legal validity is ultimately explained regarding the criteria that the influence is based on the social convention. It implies that law is a function of some social facts and hence, it cannot be separated from morality. It is also evident that law cannot provide an outcome for all cases and in such situation; morality should apply in offering judgment. Therefore, as much as the laws are considered to be superior to morals, the two co-exist to complement one another. The Judge may modify the existing law to fit in the case at hand, but such decision must be justifiable in the moral context. The international rules are made in consideration of the interest of various stakeholders, and they aim at achieving what is known as a common good.
The international human right law (IHRL) provides that every person has a right to life and any attempt to violate such provisions is against the legal theory. Philosophers have used such laws to condemn illegal use of combat drones which has taken the lives of many innocent people in various countries. Armed conflict should be highly monitored to ensure better protection of the interest of the individuals in society. For example, the report of the United Nations revealed that the number of civilians killed and the casualties in the drone attack by the U.S. in Afghanistan is much significant. However, the number of victims decreased by 46\% in the year 2012 while the report shows that the drones released 506 weapons during the year. The data was in comparison with that of the previous year where only 294 weapons were released and resulted in a more significant number of civilians being killed (Sehrawat, 2017). There is a strong relationship between the deaths resulting from aerial attacks and adherence to the set rules and regulations governing the new warfare technology. The military ought to remain vigilant with the international laws regulating armed conflict to ensure the lives of civilians are not taken for granted. The users of the combat drones should maintain high integrity in law for maximization of the benefits associated with the technology and mitigation of its drawbacks.
Combat drones may also have an environmental, social, political and economic impact which needs to be considered in the realm of the legal theory of their usage. The technology has become widely used tool wars, and the scientist believes that it has a significant impact on the ecosystem. Their usage has increased even in the movie shooting which is associated with the reduction in the cost of their raw materials and advancement in technology that makes them readily available. Drones are used in areas that might be too dangerous for human beings. They have positively changed society by making it easier to do what could not be possible under human capacity. The scientist can also carry out their research even in areas where human survival cannot be supported. More discoveries are made to make our lives better every day. Despite the criticisms, many more lives have been saved through the use of combat drones. Drones have also led to the creation of new job opportunities and hence impacting the economy positively.
On the other hand, Rosen (2014) has criticized the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as they are destructive. He argues that drones are leading to a denial of life without any due process of the law. Some users especially the United States have violated the territorial sovereignty by of other nation by participating in wars that they are not formally involved. Airstrikes are used to intervene in other combats in the name of self-defense. The lawfulness of such activities are questioned and have raised hot debate discussing whether combat drones should be used or not. And if they must be used, what regulations should govern the practices. In the American culture, we might see combat drones to be more beneficial since they keep us safe from our enemies from a general perspective, their use might be unethical. Since the year 2001 when the first UAV was released to Afghanistan, America has been aiming for more attacks in its intensified war on terrorism. In the due process, many innocent lives are lost for been killed together with the suspected terrorists.
Rosen (2013) argues that international laws need to be considered whenever operating the drones or planning for an attack. He stated that some legal implications on human right treaties are felt in the European states where drones are used in the international military maneuvers. The use of UAVs in armed conflict may be conducted under the law and also adhere to the right human obligations. Bankovic v Belgium (2001) was one of the notable cases related to the use of drones. In the scenario, the court had to decide whether NATO members ought to be held responsible for the damages caused to most of the civilians during the airstrike at the headquarters of the Serbian Radio Television in Belgrade. The court ruled on the non-terrorism basis and the exemption requirements. It was found that the bombs and missiles fired from the drone were not sufficient, and hence, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) did not apply. The jurisdiction sets the reasoning on where the human rights treaties may hold in case of military drone.
The international law of armed conflict provides that the country respect the sovereignty of each nation. Before the use of combat drones in a global state, the user must obtain consent from the administration in power. Consulting vital officials such as the minister of foreign affairs and other heads of government would be much vital before making any use of the UAVs. An excellent example of this was seen with regards to the airstrike attack of 2007 when the US had to obtain consent from the president Mohamed and the minister of defense Haji Mohamud Fiqi where they both stated that the efforts are welcome for fighting against the al-Shabaab (“IBA – Legality of armed drone strikes”, 2017). The consent will allow the federal government to have recognition as the legitimate and the attacks remain valid under the international law. Another consent by Iraq for the drone strikes was evidenced in the officials’ letter to the U.N. secretary council. Afghanistan had also followed the shoots by granting consent in 2012 when it entered into a strategic partnership agreement to mitigate terrorism activities.
Before assessing the legal aspect of the combat drones, it would be critical to examine the relevant technology applied with these armed gadgets. The grounded troops and unmanned aircraft is that the drones are more advantageous and they act in a more controlled manner as compared to the military personnel. A designated crew operates the drones while at miles away from the danger of combat. The targeting decisions are made instantly without necessarily been physically present at the battlefield. Different technologies are compiled in one platform for a higher functionality of the drones. For instance, it has got a well-developed surveillance system with live video cameras, thermal sensors, a global positioning system (GPS) and other equipment. Sehrawat (2017) connotes that the drones can scan the target cities and zoom in various objects in over 60,000 miles. The data collected by the surveillance system is then transmitted to satellites which then send the signals to the grounded forces for analyzing the vulnerabilities of the enemy and formulate the attacking strategies.
The significant weapons that drones carry are the drop bombs and missiles including those with a capacity of targeting individuals, sections of structures and automobiles. These missiles are guided by both on-ground intelligence and sensors that are installed to increase their efficiency. Drones may also have Wi-Fi crackers that help in identifying the target location as well as enhancing communication. The advanced technology and the intelligence make it possible to trace the behavior patterns, recognize the facial characters, and even monitor the conversation of the individuals. Combat drones are made of lighter materials to minimize their weight and enhance maneuverability. Thus, to avoid detection, drones can fly at very high, and they have a navigation system that is programmed to operate the drones autonomously. The modern crafts cannot be compared with the traditional manned ones who exposed the military personnel. Combats drones don’t get thirsty, hungry or tired like the case with human beings. Therefore, they are of higher benefit when dealing with terrorism but must be used following international law.
The use of combat drones in this 21st century has become a major controversial legal issue that compromises with the international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict (IHL and LOAC). Various philosophers have argued on the moral values surrounding the use of drones in war. As much as they ought to be treated as a weapon system, their usage should be within the legal theory by complying with the proposed relevant laws. Drones have raised a question of the international affairs of other countries in areas where they are used. The existence of advanced technology and weapons in warfare may have an advance impact in the armed conflict. A legal philosopher by name Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart or simply H. L. A. Hart argued that it is immoral to make use of hyper-destructive weapons. Other scholars have also supported that extraordinary weapons including drones are not only immoral but also not in conformity with the religious rules of warfare. The combatants are required to adhere to the set laws which govern the armed conflict. Drones are key instruments deployed by some states for earning a competitive advantage against their counterpart.
The legal environment implies varying opinions regarding the use of combat drones. They are only taken as a legitimate weapon if used in compliance with international law. Research has shown that drone is now widely used by different countries and this leads to the rise of the intellectual debate on the grounds under which one should make use of drones for military purpose. Criticism of the technology has also increased due to the perception that some users don’t have the right granted by the international law and LOAC. Thus, they end up in putting the lives of many citizens at risk. The technology might also be used by influential terrorists to commit crimes by attacking so many innocent people. The United States made its first usage of combat drones in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 (O’Connell, 2010). They were also applied in other cases such as in Iraq in the efforts to over through the Saddam Hussein’s administration. Despite the many questions raised on the legality of the combat drones, the U.S. has continued to use them, particularly in the ongoing battles in Afghanistan. They are the most preferred as they save the life of pilots and other Special Forces since they are unmanned aerial vehicles flying in dangerous attack zones.
Every war is governed by the IHL and LOAC that derived from the customary law and treaties. The laws based on the view that nations have come to acknowledge the traditional rules for morally accepted practices in armed conflict. The general law theory arises from the need civilized nations to prevent unnecessary destructions in the waging of war. The legal framework of the armed conflict is highly driven by the humanitarian concerns and is used to control the level of hostility in the nations. It also helps in protecting the citizens, victims of war and the shipwrecked from unfair treatments. Laws regulate the various things in the warfare including the weapons and the strategies employed. LOAC is based on four primary principles: military necessity, gratuitous/unnecessary suffering, proportionality and distinction (Sehrawat, 2017). They all govern the spirit and purpose of war and determination of the target areas. Legality of drones is justified under the above-principles which also play a significant role in the development of weapon laws and weapon system. Legal theory is used to determine whether a particular weapon is lawful or not. In the application of the four principles, it is clear that a weapon ought to the free from unnecessary suffering. It should also be able to identify the target more accurately to avoid causing injuries to the intended individuals. Weapons that one cannot control are dangerous by nature, and it is against the law and moral values to use such weapons regardless of the situation. Use of uncontrollable combat drones is also prohibited under international law.
Sehrawat (2017) explains the principle of distinction as the process of differentiating among the legitimate target and the protected persons. It is very common to have many people suffering from the wars while they are still innocents. The terrorist has also adopted a strategy of using the civilians as a shield for executing their plans and avoiding counterattacks. The military has to use the highest level of intelligence to save the life of the innocent victims of terror attack while at the same time to sparing the criminals. The weapons used must have the ability to distinguish the various categories of individuals to protect human rights. Combat drones use advanced technology that enables it to have a precise targeting in line with the general legal theory. The international law of conflict war prohibit weapons that have no distinction element. Drones allow the operator to trace even the individual’s face while a thousand miles away and through the high bandwidth satellites, the communications are sent for improved efficiency in attack. The tactic is better than the traditional mode of fighting were dangerous weapons such as nuclear bombs were used to kill people unselectively.
Combat drones give the country using them bargaining power over their rival. They are capable of distinguishing the between armed terrorists and the civilians if they are well-controlled. The attackers must consider the human rights of other people before realizing these dangerous weapons. This is because the terrorists might take advantage of densely populated areas to hide. The civilians are also encouraged to provide helpful information regarding the terrorist plans to help in improving the state of security. An ethical dilemma exists where the Special Forces cannot make decisions of sacrificing the lives of some civilian in the hunt of the terrorist. Terrorism has imposed an adverse impact on the economic development of many countries especially in countries where wars have lasted for long. It does not only impose a threat to the particular country but also the neighboring nations as well as those in the same trade union. It, therefore, calls for a collaborative effort in winning the war against terrorism just like we have witnessed with the al-Qindar.
The analysis of the legal implication of the drone technology has shown that their effectiveness can be improved adherence to the set laws. Various theories used to justify the criticism of the use UAVs are understood much better in the context of ethical compliance. For instance, O’Connell (2010) reveals the action of CIA when they attacked a passengers’ vehicle with hellfire missiles on November 3, 2002, in Yemen. The drone controlled by the Air Force was used to make the attack. Several concerns were raised while the majority demanded an explanation about the legality of the attack conducted in a place where there could be no armed conflict. The practice was unethical since six passengers who were in the vehicle were killed. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights also condemned the action terming it as extrajudicial killing.
A common ethical problem with the use of combat drones experienced in the warfare raises different reactions from various scholars. Not only are drones used during the battle, but also several nations possess the technology, although some are struggling to bring the military together. The technique of drone has widely been advancing since the early years of 2000 as well as its 1st use by the U.S. in Afghanistan. The trends in the aerospace and defense sector of the United States indicates a vast growth as per the 2017 annual report. The industry generated US\$865 billion as economic output which was equivalent to 2.4 million job opportunities (Fanning, 2019). The results show the growth which has resulted from the use of advanced technology including the use of combat drones to attack the enemies. However, the majority from the Middle East nations are yet expending the technology which was deserted by Russians in the 1970s. This has made the fight extremely unfair, and hence it may be viewed as unethical to apply that progressive technology to a feeble country.
Research has shown that the future of combat drones’ technology cannot be limited. Majority of organizations are working to make drones much autonomous so that they will not require human component anymore during their use. For instance, plans were put up of constructing a drone that is nuclear powered which could fly for years in one time. The ideas were dismissed due to the atomic fallout worry in case an accident occurred. The art, artificial intelligence is built as well as executed into UAVs, it would become an ethical problem. The machine is not able to tell the distinction between children having a gun which you can be able to speak about to a complete terrorist. Applying the legal theory which emphasizes the basic principles used in determining the legality of an attack provides a guiding tool in strategy formulation. Wright (2015) also argues that the international laws of warfare provide the principles governing the just war principles. Adhering to these laws are better ways of evaluating the ethical consideration of combat drones.
Combat drones may also have an adverse impact on human life due to their effect on the environment condition. For instance, the drop bombs are associated with a high level of air pollution. It also lowers the quality of life for the residence in the surrounding area due to the deterioration of the clean air. It is also recommended to make use of combat drones that are powered by solar and battery or any other renewable energy to mitigate their environmental impact. However, comparing them with the traditional approach which entailed the use of nuclear bombs, combat drones might be safer and more environmentally friendly especially when well-monitored. The users are also advised to adhere with the international laws regarding the armed conflict. More accurate technology can also be used to improve the efficiency and functionality of the drones. The criteria for selecting the strikes should also be determined by the proposed laws and ensure the protection of the innocent civilians.
The deontological ethics theory may be applied to the use of the combat drones. It focuses on duty as well as the absolute rules, no matter whether they bring severe consequences. During the drones’ attack, the airstrike can be initiated in a target of high value at a city that is densely populated like the Islamabad of Pakistan. Even though there exists a possibility of damage that is high collateral together with the civilian victims, the strike would, however, happen because deontological theory bases itself on a logic. The theory of teleology may also be applied in the drones’ use. The theory emphasizes the purpose of every action as well as its intention. In case the military bombs target with they intend to kill a significant number target with few civilian victims because he can be working on a terrorist attack. Thus, the killing will fulfill the ethical needs of teleology. The strategy is in contrary with the philosophers’ argument on the utilitarian theory. An action is morally right or ethical if it results in the well-being of the majority (Hart, 1958). Combat drones, if used contrary to the international laws, may cause harm to many innocent people and hence, cannot be regarded as ethical.
In conclusion, technological advancement is inevitable even in the field of war. The research conducted on the combat drones and the legal environment shows that the mechanism has more advantages than the disadvantages. Criticisms are raised where the users of such technology fail to observe the rules and regulations governing the practices. Most civilians have become victims of the unmanned aerial attacks which is associated with significant damages and casualties. These are highly criticized under ethical context, and most philosophers have used the breach of human rights in supporting their claims on the illegality of the combat drones. However, the military and the Special Forces must a balance in winning the war against terrorism and observing the moral values. Combat drones are significant technology piece with a lot of essential uses to the civilians as well as the military. While mostly accepted by the majority, there exist yet a lot of questions that the UAVs opponents have about privacy as well as the military drones’ ethics mainly when used in America. Drones applications have provided tools to unlikely fields like mining, film making, farming, as well as research. The uses of drones in the military are very controversial. Majority of countries have started creating their UAVs to defend themselves. Also, they have turned to be advanced almost like the U.S. despite a lot of opponents to the military drones; we are yet expected to experience high rises in the research of military by use drone technology. Drones that comply with laws and ethics may be debated for an extended period. Their usage should be highly regulated to ensure compliance with legal theory. While the technology is developing, we should be diligent in making sure that we are applying it ethically and logically. These will help to optimize the outcome of the new technology and prevent adverse impact to the casualties.