ABSTRACT

The paper discusses the international legal framework governing the use of drones in armed
conflicts. It explores key documents like the United Nations Charter, the Geneva
Conventions, and various international treaties that shape the legality of drone strikes. The
paper examines the justifications put forth by states for the use of drone strikes, including
self-defense, preemptive strikes, and the fight against terrorism. It delves into how these
justifications align or clash with principles of natural justice. One of the central arguments in
the paper is the tension between targeted killing and natural justice. It raises questions about
whether targeted killings through drones adhere to principles of proportionality, necessity,
and discrimination as required by international humanitarian law. The paper highlights the
importance of transparency and accountability in drone strike operations. It discusses the
challenges of accountability, especially when drone strikes are conducted in regions with
limited oversight or access by international organizations. The paper addresses the issue of
collateral damage and the unintended civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes. It
evaluates the efforts made to minimize civilian harm and questions whether these efforts are
sufficient to meet the standards of natural justice. The research also considers the impact of
drone strikes on international relations. It examines how the use of drones in conflict zones
affects diplomatic ties between states and the global perception of the state employing drones.
The paper delves into the ethical and moral dimensions of drone warfare, particularly
focusing on the human and psychological aspects of drone operators and the implications of
remote warfare. The paper concludes with recommendations for potential legal reforms or
guidelines to ensure that drone strikes better align with principles of natural justice and
international law.

1
1.0. Introduction

In the landscape of modern warfare, the utilization of “unmanned aerial vehicles”, more

commonly known as drones, has ushered in a new era of strategic capabilities and ethical

dilemmas. The ever-advancing technology of drones has not only revolutionized the way

nations approach military operations but has also raised crucial questions about the

compatibility of such tactics with the principles of international humanitarian law and the

foundations of natural justice and fair hearing.1

Drone technology, initially designed for exploration purposes, has undergone remarkable

evolution. Today, it encompasses a wide range of unmanned systems, from surveillance

drones to armed unmanned aircraft capable of delivering precision-guided munitions. These

“remotely operated vehicles” have transformed the dynamics of warfare, offering

unprecedented surveillance capabilities, cost-effectiveness, and reduced risk to the operators,

all while enabling precise and targeted strikes.

The significance of drone strikes in the realm of modern conflict cannot be overstated. These

“aerial assets” have been extensively deployed in numerous theatres of operation, from

counterterrorism efforts to border security and military campaigns. The ability to swiftly and

accurately eliminate high-value targets while minimizing collateral damage has made drones

a preferred tool for many military and intelligence agencies worldwide.2

This paper embarks on a scholarly examination of the intricate relationship between drone

strikes and the foundational principles of natural justice and due process within the

framework of international law. It endeavors to address a critical research question: How do

1
TS2.SHOP, article on “Military Robotics: Revolutionizing Modern Warfare” available at
https://ts2.shop/en/posts/military-robotics-revolutionizing-modern-warfare accessed on 29th October, 2023.
2
Clara Crandall, “Ready ... Fire ... Aim! A case for applying American due Process Principles Before Engaging
in Drone Strikes” Florida Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, Iss. 1 [2012], Art. 3

2
the legal, ethical, and practical aspects of targeted drone operations intersect with the right to

a fair trial and due process, as enshrined in international legal norms?

The primary purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of this complex interplay,

employing doctrinal research approach that encompasses legal analysis, case studies, and

content analysis of international legal instruments. By doing so, it seeks to contribute to the

ongoing discourse on drone warfare, offering valuable insights into the challenges of

reconciling security imperatives with the preservation of natural justice principles within the

evolving landscape of contemporary armed conflict and international law. Moreover, the

paper advocates for the incorporation of additional information and the exploration of

international legal frameworks to enrich this scholarly conversation. In a world where drone

technology continues to redefine the contours of conflict, this paper holds profound relevance

for policymakers, legal scholars, and human rights advocates wrestling with the varied

dynamics of modern warfare.

1.1. Historical context.

In the history of military technology, the early use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),

commonly known as drones, during World War I was a groundbreaking development. 3 These

early drones were quite basic and were often called "aerial torpedoes." Their primary role was

to carry and drop explosives.4 While they had limited capabilities, they played a significant

role in paving the way for future advancements in drone technology.

The curiosity and experimentation with drone technology continued to grow, especially

during World War II. Both the Allied and Axis powers were intrigued by the potential of

remote-controlled aircraft. During this time, notable innovations included the German V-1

3
Paul McBride, Comment, Beyond Orwell: The Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Domestic
Surveillance Operations, 74 J. AIR L. & COM. 627,633 (2009)
4
Jack M. Beard, Law and War in the Virtual Era, 103 AM. J. INT'L L. 409, 412 (2009)

3
flying bomb5 and the American TDR-1 assault drone6, which showcased audacious

experimentation on both sides.

Following World War II, the evolution of drone technology persisted. Drones were primarily

used for target practice and to test guided missile systems, signifying a commitment to

advancement.

The Vietnam War marked a turning point as the United States began using drones like the

AQM-34 Ryan Firebee for reconnaissance missions. These seemingly inconspicuous

machines played a vital role in improving intelligence-gathering capabilities, underscoring

their strategic importance.

Advancements in the 1980s and 1990s represented a technological renaissance. 7 More

sophisticated guidance systems came into play, leading to the use of drones in various

conflicts, including the Gulf War, for tasks ranging from reconnaissance to target acquisition.

However, the 21st century brought a revolutionary transformation in drone technology. This

era witnessed the emergence of armed unmanned aircraft, exemplified by iconic models like

the Predator and Reaper drones. These armed drones, equipped with precision munitions,

became central to counterterrorism efforts, fundamentally changing the landscape of targeted

strikes.

Simultaneously, the historical record was marked by significant instances of drone strikes

etched into the annals of modern warfare. Notably, the early stages of the "War on Terror" in

5
Wikipedia; “V-1 flying bomb” available at < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb> accessed on 29th
October, 2023.

6
Christopher McFadden, “Meet the TDR-1: one of the world's first ever deployed combat UAVs” available at <
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/the-tdr-1-one-of-the-first-ever-combat-uavs> accessed on 29th
October, 2023.
7
See Rebecca Grant, An Air War Like No Other, A.F. MAG., Nov. 2002, at 30, 34. Currently, at least one drone-
the Reaper-even carries other guided munitions.

4
2001 saw the deployment of Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles in Afghanistan.

This marked a momentous shift towards using drones for targeted killings.8

In the realm of legality and covert operations, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

embarked on a clandestine drone campaign within Pakistan's tribal regions, starting in 2004

and continuing to the present day. This covert initiative, focused on targeting suspected

militants, sparked debates about its legality and concerns about collateral damage.

Another watershed moment occurred in 2011 during "Operation Neptune Spear," which led to

the elimination of Osama bin Laden. A crucial aspect of this mission was the vital real-time

intelligence provided by a drone, underscoring the evolving role of UAVs in contemporary

military operations.

In the ongoing efforts against terrorism, drone strikes persist, particularly in Yemen and

Somalia, where the primary aim is to target groups like Al-Qaeda, ensuring that drones

remain a significant part of modern conflict.

Furthermore, drone technology extends to contemporary conflict zones like Syria and Iraq. In

these regions, a variety of actors, not limited to traditional state military forces, employ

drones for various purposes, including surveillance, precise targeting, and offensive actions.

This reflects the increasing prevalence of drones as versatile tools in the complex web of

modern conflicts.

8
Michael C. Horowitz, Sarah E. Kreps, and Matthew Fuhrmann; “Separating Fact from Fiction in the Debate
over Drone Proliferation” available at
<https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/isec_a_00257.pdf> accessed on 29th October, 2023.

5
1.2. Legal Framework for Drone Strikes.

In the exploration of the legal framework for drone strikes within the context of international

law, several crucial facets come into focus. These underpin the examination of the principles

governing the use of force (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of armed conflicts (jus in bello).9

The United Nations Charter of 194510 emerges as the foundational document of international

law. Within its pages lie the bedrock principles that govern the use of force and the dynamics

of armed conflicts. Notably, Articles 2(4) and 51 stand out, addressing the prohibition of the

use of force and the right to self-defense.

The Geneva Conventions of 194911 form another integral part of this legal framework. These

conventions meticulously delineate the laws of armed conflict and humanitarian rules. The

spotlight falls on the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, particularly

Additional Protocol I (1977), which intricately deals with armed conflicts of an international

character. It is paramount to scrutinize how these conventions are applied to drone strikes and

to dissect their impact on the overarching concept of natural justice.

The corpus of International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinions, which reverberates with

significance, beckons our attention. Delve into ICJ rulings that revolve around the use of

force and armed conflicts. Cases of note, such as the Nicaragua Case (1986) 12 and the

9
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); “What are jus ad bellum and jus in bello?” available at <
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0%EF%BB%BF#:~:text=authorization
%20for%20the%20use%20of,engaged%20in%20an%20armed%20conflict.> accessed on 29th October, 2023.
10
Until the end of the First World War, resorting to the use of armed force was regarded not as an illegal act but
as an acceptable way of settling disputes.
In 1919, the Covenant of the League of Nations and, in 1928, the Treaty of Paris (the Briand-Kellogg Pact)
sought to outlaw war. The adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945 confirmed the trend.

11
American Red Cross; “Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols” April,
2011; paper available at < https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/International_Services/
International_Humanitarian_Law/IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf> accessed on 29th October, 2023.
12
ICJ, Nicaragua v. United States [1986] ICJ Rep 14 (27 June 1986)

6
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case (1996) 13, provide indispensable

insights into the legal principles that underpin the intricate tapestry of drone strikes.

Customary international law, shaped by the twin elements of state practice and opinio juris,

assumes a pivotal role. It is a cornerstone in shaping the legal landscape governing the use of

force and armed conflicts. Its influence on the legal framework for drone strikes cannot be

overstated.

Further navigating this intricate terrain, one encounters the task of dissecting various

international legal instruments and conventions. This endeavor is indispensable for a

comprehensive understanding of the overarching framework. The terrain includes delineating

various types of armed conflicts acknowledged under international law, encompassing

international armed conflicts, non-international armed conflicts, and transnational armed

conflicts. Moreover, the scrutiny extends to the humanitarian principles that underpin the

conduct of hostilities under international humanitarian law (jus in bello). 14 Among these

principles are those of distinction, proportionality, military necessity, and humanity.

The principles that govern the use of force (jus ad bellum) demand our scholarly scrutiny.

This entails a discussion of the just war theory and the intricate legal framework governing

when and how a state can resort to the use of force. Key concepts within this purview include

self-defense, the authority of the Security Council, and the necessity and proportionality of

force.

Simultaneously, the examination encompasses the realm of jus in bello, which guides the

conduct of hostilities during armed conflicts. Central to this exploration is the principle of

distinction, delineating the demarcation between combatants and civilians, the principle of

proportionality, and the protection of prisoners of war.

13
Legality of the Threat or Use of nuclear weapons [1996] ICJ 3, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226.
14
Supra, note 11.

7
Ultimately, this extensive framework finds direct application to the realm of drone strikes.

The paper's mission is to dissect the compliance of drone strikes with these legal principles

and to ensure their adherence to international law and the bedrock concept of natural justice.

An arsenal of case studies and current developments shall be enlisted to fortify this analytical

voyage.

1.3. The Doctrine of Targeted Killings

In the contemporary landscape of military strategies and international humanitarian law, the

doctrine of targeted killings holds a prominent position. This doctrine revolves around the

deliberate and precise use of lethal force to eliminate specific individuals considered

legitimate military targets.15 These individuals are often high-value or high-threat targets, and

the doctrine argues that their elimination is not only strategically advantageous but also

legally justifiable in the context of national security.

The doctrine of targeted killings finds a natural alignment with the practice of drone strikes.

Drones, especially armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have become the primary

instruments for carrying out targeted killings. Drones offer the ability to remotely and

accurately engage specific individuals in locations that might be inaccessible or highly

challenging for traditional military operations. These aircraft have redefined the practice of

targeted killings by offering advantages such as reduced risk to operators, real-time

surveillance capabilities, and the capacity to swiftly act on intelligence. In essence, drones

represent the epitome of precision in the execution of targeted killings, aligning perfectly

with the principles of accuracy, discrimination, and the minimization of collateral damage

that are at the core of this doctrine.

15
Amos N. Guiora, Legislative and Policy Responses to Terrorism, a Global Perspective,7 SAN DIEGO INT'L
L.J. 125, 147 (2005) ("Targeted killings are primarily criticized based on the premise that they constitute either
extrajudicial killings or assassinations.").

8
Comparing targeted killings through drone strikes with conventional methods of warfare

reveals significant distinctions. One of the most prominent distinctions is the focus on

precision. Targeted killings through drones are designed to minimize collateral damage by

narrowing the focus to specific individuals, as opposed to conventional warfare, which can

entail broader engagements leading to higher civilian casualties and infrastructure

destruction.

Another crucial aspect is the reduced risk to operators. Drones are operated remotely, keeping

military personnel at a safe distance from the battlefield, whereas traditional warfare often

exposes soldiers to direct danger.16

Drones have the remarkable ability to reach targets in remote or inaccessible regions,

overcoming geographic limitations. Traditional military operations, on the other hand, often

require extensive logistical and strategic planning.

The legal and ethical considerations surrounding targeted killings through drones are distinct

and complex. They involve questions of sovereignty, the use of force, and human rights, and

these concerns have sparked unique debates and challenges. While traditional methods of

warfare are also subject to international law, the specific nature of drone strikes has given rise

to new legal and ethical dimensions that demand careful scrutiny.

Furthermore, the reliance on intelligence and surveillance sets drone strikes apart. Drones

depend on extensive intelligence and surveillance to identify and track their targets, often

involving a network of sources and technologies. While traditional warfare also relies on

intelligence, the precision and real-time capabilities of drones introduce a level of

sophistication that requires a different approach to analysis and oversight.

16
ts2.space; “The Advantages and Disadvantages of Drones in Military Operations” Available at
<https://ts2.space/en/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-drones-in-military-operations/> accessed on 29th
October, 2023.

9
In summary, the doctrine of targeted killings, when executed through drone strikes, represents

a contemporary approach to armed conflict that emphasizes precision, reduced risk to

operators, global reach, and the minimization of collateral damage. However, this approach

also raises complex legal and ethical considerations, setting it apart from traditional methods

of warfare and necessitating a thorough examination of its implications.

1.4. Natural justice, Ethical Considerations, International Human Rights and

International Humanitarian Laws.

The ethical dimensions of drone warfare form a pivotal facet of the discourse surrounding

this modern military strategy. In contemplating natural justice and the ethical considerations

entwined with drone warfare, a multifaceted terrain unfolds, demanding thorough

exploration.17

Exploring the Ethical Aspects of Drone Warfare:

The ethical fabric of drone warfare is complex and multifaceted. It prompts us to delve into

the heart of just war theory, an age-old framework that scrutinizes the morality of armed

conflicts. It scrutinizes the just cause, the right intention, precaution, proportionality, and

distinction. Do drone strikes align with the principles of just war theory? How do they adhere

to the ethical precepts that have guided the ethics of warfare for centuries? These questions

are pivotal to understanding the ethical underpinnings of drone warfare within the broader

context of natural justice in international humanitarian law.

Civilian Casualties and Collateral Damage:

Ethical concerns in the realm of drone warfare are epitomized by the risk of civilian

casualties and collateral damage. The precision boasted by drone technology is indeed

17
Anna Jackman; “Manning’ the ‘unmanned’: Reapproaching the military drone through learning the/to drone”
University of Reading, Geography; Political Geography 104 (2023)

10
impressive, but it does not entirely eliminate the potential for unintended harm to innocent

civilians in the vicinity of targeted individuals. The ethical dilemma that emerges pertains to

the extent to which drone strikes can truly discriminate between combatants and non-

combatants. The question is not merely whether such casualties occur, but how they are

mitigated, and more fundamentally, how they are prevented. How does the ethical calculus of

"acceptable risk" in drone warfare align with the principles of natural justice, human rights,

and the broader ethical considerations that govern armed conflicts?

Assessing the Principles of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights

Law and the aspects of Natural Justice and Due Process:

The utilization of drone strikes in contemporary warfare presents a complex intersection of

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), with

profound implications for the principles of natural justice and due process. Drones offer

distinct tactical advantages, facilitating precise targeting while minimizing harm to civilians. 18

However, they also raise significant apprehensions concerning transparency and

accountability. Striking an equitable equilibrium in this context is of paramount importance.

It necessitates a rigorous adherence to IHL principles, such as necessity, distinction,

proportionality and precaution, to avert indiscriminate harm. Concurrently, guaranteeing that

individuals subjected to drone strikes possess access to due process and natural justice rights,

encompassing the right to be heard and contest their classification, assumes fundamental

significance. The crux of the matter rests in the seamless integration of these legal facets,

adapting to the ever-evolving nature of warfare and preserving human rights in an era where

technology has reshaped the battlefield landscape.

18
United Nations General Assembly; Human Rights Council Forty-fourth session,” Promotion and protection of
all human rights, civil, Political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development” 15
June–3 July 2020 Agenda item 3; Use of armed drones for targeted killings; Report of the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

11
The following are detailed explanation on the aforementioned aspects.

Necessity: Necessity is a foundational principle in the ethics of armed conflict, guiding when

and how force should be used. According to international humanitarian law (IHL), the use of

force, including in drone warfare, must be a necessary means to achieve a legitimate military

objective. This requirement is enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which

prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the United

Nations Security Council.

In the context of drone strikes, it is essential to demonstrate that the use of drones is the only

viable option to address an imminent threat. This links to the concept of natural justice, as the

necessity principle ensures that force is employed judiciously and proportionally, minimizing

harm to civilians and property.

Distinction: The principle of distinction obliges parties to an armed conflict to distinguish

between combatants and non-combatants and between military objectives and civilian

objects. Under the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, 19 Article 48, combatants

are lawful targets, while civilians are protected from direct attacks. The principle of

distinction underscores the ethical imperative of minimizing harm to innocent civilians

during drone strikes.

In the realm of natural justice, this principle aligns with the fundamental notion of fairness

and the protection of those not actively participating in hostilities. By ensuring the distinction

is observed, drone warfare aims to uphold the rights of individuals to a fair and just treatment,

even in the midst of conflict.

Proportionality: Proportionality in IHL requires that the anticipated harm to civilians or

civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage

19
Supra, note 11.

12
expected. This principle is anchored in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I. In the

context of drone strikes, it mandates a careful assessment of the potential consequences and a

thorough balancing of the costs versus benefits.

The application of proportionality is integral to natural justice, as it safeguards the principle

of fairness by ensuring that the use of force remains justified and proportionate, even during

armed conflict.

Precaution: The precautionary principle in IHL emphasizes the duty to take all feasible

precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. This principle is articulated in Articles

57(2)(i) and 57(3) of Additional Protocol I 20. In drone warfare, it translates into a duty to

minimize the risk to non-combatants through measures like accurate target identification and

verification, timely decision-making, and post-strike assessment.

From the standpoint of natural justice and due process, the precautionary principle bolsters

the ethical and legal commitment to safeguarding individuals' rights and welfare, especially

in situations of armed conflict.

International Human Rights Law: International human rights law, including the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

guarantees fundamental rights and protections to individuals, even in times of armed conflict.

Drone warfare must respect these rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture,

and the right to a fair trial, among others.

The intersection of international human rights law and natural justice underscores the ethical

imperative of upholding individual rights and due process, even within the context of

conflict. It reflects the commitment to preserving the dignity and freedoms of individuals,

irrespective of the circumstances.

20
Supra, note 18.

13
Natural Justice and Due Process: Natural justice and due process encompass the

fundamental notions of fairness, justice, and legal protections. They ensure that individuals,

even in conflict zones, have the right to be heard, to challenge their designation as a

legitimate target, and to be treated in a manner consistent with human rights and ethical

principles.21 Natural justice and due process converge with the principles discussed above to

create a framework that places individual rights and ethical considerations at the forefront of

drone warfare.

It is vital to note that the ethical considerations enmeshed in drone warfare extend far beyond

the immediate battleground. They ripple through the corridors of international diplomacy and

the annals of human rights. The ethical discourse on drones resonates with legal experts,

policymakers, and the broader global community. As drone technology continues to evolve

and assert its presence in modern conflict, the ethical questions it poses become increasingly

urgent. How we navigate this intricate ethical terrain will undoubtedly leave a lasting imprint

on the broader landscape of natural justice within international law. It is a discourse that

transcends borders and resonates as a testament to our shared commitment to uphold the

highest ethical standards, even in the face of evolving technologies and changing paradigms

of warfare.

In summary, these principles and legal provisions underscore the ethical foundation of drone

warfare and its connection to natural justice and due process. They serve as safeguards to

minimize harm to civilians, uphold individual rights, and ensure that the use of force is both

necessary and proportionate, even within the complex landscape of armed conflict.

1.5. Case studies

21
Supra, note 18.

14
Case Study 1: Targeted Killing of Qasem Soleimani (Middle East) 22 In January 2020, the

United States conducted a drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, a prominent Iranian

military commander, in Iraq. This incident raised concerns regarding the legality of targeted

killings under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law

(IHRL). While the U.S. argued it was an act of self-defense, critics questioned the

proportionality and distinction principles under IHL, as well as the violation of Iraq's

sovereignty.

Case Study 2: Drone Strikes in Yemen (Middle East)23 The ongoing conflict in Yemen has

seen numerous drone strikes carried out by the Saudi-led coalition. These strikes have led to

civilian casualties and sparked debates about the application of IHL in this conflict. Questions

arise about the distinction between combatants and civilians, as well as the principle of

proportionality.

Case Study 3: Drone Strikes in Pakistan (South Asia) 24 The U.S. drone program in

Pakistan's tribal regions has been a subject of controversy. The strikes targeted suspected

militants but also resulted in civilian casualties. This situation prompted debates about

International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and the extraterritorial use of lethal force, raising

concerns about transparency and accountability.

Case Study 4: U.S. Drone Strikes in Somalia (East Africa) 25 The United States has been

conducting drone strikes in Somalia to combat terrorist groups, particularly Al-Shabaab.

These strikes have raised questions about their compliance with international law, especially

22
ICRC.ORG, “Iran, The Targeted Killing of General Soleimani” Available at < https://casebook.icrc.org/case-
study/iran-targeted-killing-general-soleimani> accessed on 29th October, 2023.

23
The Washington Post, article by Don Lamothe, “U.S. intercepts missiles near Yemen as troops face drone
attacks in Middle East’’ available at < https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/19/us-troops-
gaza-israel/> accessed on 29th October, 2023.
24
Patrick Johnstone and Anoop Sabrahi; a preview on “The impact of us drone strike in Pakistan” available at <
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43869067> accessed on 29th October, 2023.
25
ICRC.ORG, “Somalia/US, Airstrikes in Somalia” Available at <
https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/somaliaus-airstrikes-somalia> accessed on 29th October, 2023.

15
in a country with a fragile security situation. A thorough examination of these strikes should

consider the principles of distinction and proportionality. Additionally, the role and consent of

the Somali government in these operations should be analyzed.

Case Study 5: Turkish Drone Strikes in Northern Syria (Middle East) 26 Turkey has

employed armed drones in its military operations in northern Syria, targeting Kurdish

militants. This case study highlights the legal and ethical dilemmas arising from the use of

drones in a conflict zone. It's crucial to assess the impact on civilians, as well as the

involvement of multiple actors in the region.

Case Study 6: Israeli Drone Strikes in Gaza (Middle East) 27 Israel has used drones

extensively in its conflicts with Palestinian groups in Gaza. Recent incidents have led to

allegations of violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human

Rights Law (IHRL), particularly in the context of targeting civilian structures and individuals.

Analyzing these drone strikes can shed light on issues related to proportionality, distinction,

and the protection of civilians. It is also important to examine the impact of the ongoing

Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader geopolitical context.

In each of these case studies, a comprehensive analysis should be undertaken to assess the

legal framework underpinning the drone strikes, their adherence to international law

principles, and the broader geopolitical and human rights implications. Furthermore, the role

of transparency and accountability in these cases is a critical aspect of the analysis

1.6. The Role of State Sovereignty and legal implications regarding territorial integrity.

26
VOA, “Turkey Intensifies Drone Attacks on Kurdish-Held Northern Syria” available at <
https://www.voanews.com/a/turkey-intensifies-drone-attacks-on-kurdish-held-northern-syria/7298335.html>
27
REUTERS, “Drone blasts hit two Egyptian Red Sea towns, Israel points to Houthi “available at <
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosion-heard-egyptian-red-sea-town-near-israeli-border-witness-
2023-10-27/> accessed on 29th October 2023.

16
In the realm of political theory, sovereignty, often hailed as the crowning jewel of governing

power, reigns supreme in the intricate tapestry of statecraft, wielding the authoritative sceptre

responsible for orchestrating decisions within a sovereign state and safeguarding the

hallowed citadel of order. This concept of sovereignty, a perennial maelstrom of debate and

discord in the field of international relations and international law, stands as an intellectual

epicentre intricately interwoven with the multifaceted ideals of statehood, governance,

independence, and democracy.

Tracing its lineage back to the Latin progenitor "superanus" and evolving through the elegant

nuances of the French "souveraineté," sovereignty was initially enshrined as the very

embodiment of supreme authority.28 Yet, within the labyrinthine corridors of practical

governance, it frequently strays from the well-worn path of its traditional definition. As

scholars delve into the depths of this enigmatic concept, they unearth its ever-shifting

contours, where the interplay of power, autonomy, and democratic aspirations creates a

dynamic and oftentimes turbulent landscape in the world of statecraft and international

relations.29

The UN Charter is a foundational and universally accepted treaty that governs the principles

of state sovereignty and the conduct of states in international relations. It provides a

comprehensive framework that upholds the sovereignty of states while setting out the rules

for maintaining international peace and security.30

Key provisions within the UN Charter that emphasize state sovereignty include:

28
Kirsten Per Andersen; “A Blast from The Past: Armed Drones, International Humanitarian Law, and Imperial
Violence” A Dissertation Submitted to The Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the
requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy; Graduate Program in Political Science York University
Toronto, Ontario March 2022.
29
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom;” The Humanitarian Impact of Drones” International
Disarmament Institute, Pace University; Article 36. October 2017; 1st edition 160 pp
30
C-SPAN, Obama Administration Counterterrorism Strategy, C-SPAN, 2011. Online video, 49:35. Available at
< https://www.c-span.org/video/?300266-1/obama-administration-counterterrorism-strategy.> accessed on 28th
October, 2023.

17
Article 2(1): This article affirms the sovereignty and equality of all UN member states, stating

that "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members."

Article 2(4): This is a fundamental provision that prohibits the threat or use of force against

the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It underlines the principle that

states should not interfere in each other's internal affairs or engage in actions that compromise

another state's sovereignty. This article reads as follows:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force

against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner

inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Article 2(7): This article reinforces the principle of non-intervention by emphasizing that the

UN shall not intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any

state. It reflects the concept of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, further

safeguarding sovereignty.

Chapter VII: While primarily dealing with matters of international peace and security,

Chapter VII of the UN Charter includes provisions for the Security Council to take action in

response to threats to peace. It is framed in a way that respects state sovereignty but also

provides a mechanism for addressing situations where a state's actions may endanger

international peace.

The United Nations Charter, with its emphasis on the sovereign equality of states and the

prohibition of the use of force against the territorial integrity of states, is the preeminent legal

framework that encapsulates the principles of state sovereignty in international public law. It

serves as the cornerstone of international relations and the primary instrument that guides the

behavior of states in their interactions with one another.31

31
Horowitz, Kreps, and Fuhrmann, “Separating Fact from Fiction in the Debate over Drone Proliferation,” pg.
17

18
The European Union, though not a state in itself, exerts considerable influence in shaping

policies and discussions on drone strikes among its member states. Central to the EU's

approach is its commitment to uphold international norms and respect the principles

safeguarding state sovereignty.32 While the treaties of the European Union, such as the Treaty

on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, do not

explicitly address drone strikes, they instil in the EU an ethos that promotes adherence to

international norms and the preservation of state sovereignty. Within the EU, member states

operate collectively under this shared framework, acknowledging the intrinsic value of these

principles.

The African Union, comprised of African member states, carries a profound commitment to

maintaining territorial integrity and state sovereignty within the African continent. While the

African Union does not possess its own binding treaty equivalent to the UN Charter, it

embeds these principles within its Constitutive Act. Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitutive Act of

the African Union specifically underscore the Union's dedication to respecting borders as

they existed at the time of achieving independence and to refraining from interfering in the

internal affairs of member states. These principles not only mirror customary international

law's concept of non-intervention but also underscore the profound significance of state

sovereignty and territorial integrity within the African context.

Legal Implications on Territorial Integrity

The legal implications concerning territorial integrity are profound and touch upon various

aspects:

32
Tarak Barkawi, “Decolonising War,” European Journal of International Security 1, no. 2 (2016): 201,
https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2016.7.

19
Sovereign Airspace: The use of drones without permission challenges the sovereign airspace

of a nation. Sovereign airspace is integral to a state's control over its territory, and any

unauthorized intrusion can be considered a violation of territorial integrity.

Non-Intervention: Drone strikes that occur without consent or authorization can be seen as

interventions in the internal affairs of another state, potentially leading to violations of the

principle of non-intervention, as enshrined in customary international law.

Violation of UN Charter: Drone strikes that disregard the territorial integrity of a nation

may be viewed as violations of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the

territorial integrity of states, except in cases of self-defense authorized by the UN Security

Council.

Potential Conflict: In situations like the U.S. drone strike in Iraq that killed Qasem

Soleimani, it not only challenged the sovereignty of Iraq but also had the potential to escalate

regional conflict, further emphasizing the consequences of violating territorial integrity.

Conclusion

The legal frameworks, including the UN Charter, the European Union, and the African

Union, play a significant role in defining the relationship between state sovereignty and drone

strikes. These agreements stress the importance of consent and respect for territorial

integrity.33 Violations of these principles can have far-reaching legal and geopolitical

implications, affecting not only the states directly involved but also regional and international

stability. Balancing the need for self-defense with respect for sovereignty remains a

challenging and crucial task in the context of drone strikes.

33
United Nations; Meetings Coverage and Press Releases; article on “International Laws Protecting Civilians in
Armed Conflict Not Being Upheld, Secretary-General Warns Security Council, Urging Deadly Cycle Be
Broken” available at < https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15292.doc.htm> accessed on 29th October, 2023.

20
1.7. International and Regional responses and UN Resolutions and International

Treaties.

International Responses to Drone Strikes:

Countries around the world react differently to drone strikes, and their reactions often depend

on whether they are the target of such strikes or not. When a nation is directly targeted by

drone strikes, it typically responds with strong condemnation, viewing these strikes as

violations of its sovereignty.34 A prominent example of this is Pakistan, which has repeatedly

criticized U.S. drone strikes on its territory, asserting that they encroach upon its sovereignty.

These condemnations are often accompanied by official protests and diplomatic actions.

Non-targeted nations, especially those located in regions with a history of regional instability,

express concerns about the potential spillover effects of drone strikes. They fear that the

collateral damage and unrest generated by drone strikes can destabilize their own territories.

These concerns manifest in diplomatic actions and international appeals for restraint.

Furthermore, the political response to drone strikes can be influenced by a nation's individual

interests and alliances. Some countries, despite their private reservations, publicly support

drone strikes when they align with their strategic interests or their relationships with the

striking nation. This duality in positions reflects the complex web of international politics and

alliances.

Regional Responses to Drone Strikes:

Regional responses to drone strikes exhibit a multifaceted nature. They are intricately tied to

the specific dynamics and security concerns within the region. In regions like the Middle

East, where drone strikes are relatively common, countries often respond collectively through

34
Brad Allenby, “How to Manage Drones: Transformative Technologies, the Evolving Nature of Conflict, and
the Inadequacy of Current Systems of Law,” in Drone Wars, ed. Peter L. Bergen and David Rothenberg
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 439.

21
regional organizations or alliances. For instance, the Arab League has, at times, jointly

condemned drone strikes in the Middle East, underlining the necessity of regional stability.

Regional dynamics and security concerns play a pivotal role in shaping these responses. For

instance, in the Middle East, ongoing conflicts and security threats have given rise to

divergent reactions from nations in the region. Some countries, facing a shared security

threat, may be more supportive of drone strikes as a means to combat common enemies. In

contrast, other nations perceive drone strikes as contributing to regional instability and further

complicating an already volatile situation.35

UN Resolutions and International Treaties:

The United Nations has made attempts to address the issue of drone strikes through various

resolutions. These resolutions often centre on concerns about potential violations of

international law and emphasize the necessity of transparency and accountability in the use of

drones for military purposes. For example, UN Resolution 68/178 calls upon states to ensure

that the use of remotely piloted aircraft complies with their obligations under international

law, including international human rights law. These resolutions underscore the need for

responsible use and respect for international legal standards.

In terms of international treaties and conventions, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is of

relevance. While it does not explicitly target drones, the treaty contains provisions that

indirectly regulate the international transfer of conventional arms, many of which are integral

components of drone systems. The primary aim of the ATT is to prevent arms transfers that

could be used to violate international law, including human rights abuses and breaches of

international peace and security.

35
‘Tear Gassing by Remote Control’, available at,
>http://remotecontrolproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Tear-Gassing-By-RemoteControl-Report.pdf. <
Accessed on 29th October, 2023.

22
Examples of UN Resolutions and International Treaties:

Specific examples of UN resolutions on drone strikes include Resolution 72/250, where the

UN General Assembly expresses concern about the use of armed drones for targeted killings.

Another notable example is Resolution 70/180, which calls on states to promote transparency

in their use of remotely piloted aircraft systems. These resolutions serve as international

expressions of concern about the potential misuse of drones.

Regarding international treaties, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) indirectly encompasses drones

since they often contain conventional arms components. The treaty's objective is to prevent

the diversion of conventional arms to unauthorized users, safeguarding international peace

and security.

The effectiveness and enforcement of these resolutions and treaties remain subjects of debate

in the international community. Critics argue that these instruments may lack the necessary

enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, while others view them as significant steps

toward a more regulated and accountable use of drones on the international stage.

1.8. The Ongoing Debate and Controversies Surrounding Drone Strikes

Drone strikes have ignited persistent debates and controversies within academic circles,

touching on ethical, legal, practical, and procedural aspects of their use. These debates

involve a wide array of proponents and opponents, each presenting compelling arguments

that reflect the complex nature of drone strikes.36

Exploring the Debates and Controversies

Ethical Quandaries:

36
See for example New America’s World of Drones report: available at
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/world-of-drones/. Accessed on 29th October, 2023.

23
Proponents of drone strikes emphasize their potential to minimize harm to military personnel

and civilians by providing a more precise means of targeting enemy combatants. Their stance

revolves around the assertion that drones can reduce the human toll in armed conflicts.37

In stark contrast, opponents argue that drone strikes introduce ethical dilemmas, potentially

leading to the dehumanization of warfare. They contend that the ability to wage war from a

remote location can desensitize operators to the human costs of conflict, a phenomenon often

characterized as the "PlayStation mentality."38

Legal Frameworks and Sovereignty:

For proponents, the legal framework provides a robust basis for conducting drone strikes in

accordance with international law and the principles of self-defense. They place a strong

emphasis on the right of states to protect themselves from imminent threats and argue that

drones can be deployed within these legal parameters.

Opponents, on the other hand, cast doubt on the legal basis of certain drone strikes,

particularly those carried out in countries without the consent of their governments. A central

point of contention is the violation of state sovereignty and the extraterritorial use of force,

issues that are at the heart of the legal debate.

Targeted Killings and Due Process:

37
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, CIA and US military drone strikes in Pakistan, 2004 to
present, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NAfjFonM-Tn7fziqiv33HlGt09wg LZDSCP
BQaux51w/edit#gid=694046452.
38
Ibid

24
Supporters of drone strikes underscore the meticulous approach to intelligence and evidence

that underpins these operations. They maintain that this approach significantly reduces the

likelihood of errors in targeting.

Critics, however, raise concerns regarding the absence of due process in drone strike targeting

decisions. They fear that the lack of a judicial process compromises justice and leaves room

for the wrongful targeting of innocent individuals, highlighting the critical importance of

legal procedures in armed conflict.

Unintended Consequences:

Proponents argue that drone strikes can effectively eliminate high-value targets and disrupt

terrorist organizations, ultimately reducing the potential for future attacks. They view drones

as a proactive and precise counterterrorism tool.39

Opponents, in contrast, contend that drone strikes can backfire, potentially generating more

enemies than they eliminate. Collateral damage and civilian casualties, they argue, can

provoke anger and radicalization, contributing to a cycle of violence that perpetuates

conflict.40

Transparency and Accountability:

Advocates stress the importance of transparency in drone strike operations. They assert that

these strikes can be conducted with the utmost accountability and oversight, reflecting the

commitment to conducting military operations within established norms and standards. 41

39
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, CIA and US military drone strikes in Pakistan, 2004 to
present, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NAfjFonM-Tn7fziqiv33HlGt09wg
LZDSCP-BQaux51w/edit#gid=694046452
40
Supra, note 37
41
Gordon Lubold and Shane Harris, “Trump Broadens CIA Powers, Allows Deadly Drone Strikes,” The Wall
Street Journal, March 13, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gave-ciapower-to-launch-drone-strikes-
1489444374.

25
Skeptics, however, demand greater transparency in the decision-making process behind drone

strikes. They express concerns about the lack of accountability for unintended consequences,

advocating for a more transparent and accountable framework to govern these operations.

Perspectives of Proponents and Opponents

Proponents:

Supporters of drone strikes see these technologies as valuable tools in counterterrorism

efforts. They highlight the precision and the reduced risk to military personnel, making them

more appealing than conventional airstrikes or ground operations.42

They emphasize that drone strikes can adhere to international law, placing a strong emphasis

on principles of proportionality, distinction, and compliance with self-defense norms.

Advocates also argue that drones are effective means to disrupt terrorist networks, eliminate

high-value targets, and prevent potential attacks, thus contributing to global security.43

Opponents:

Opponents emphasize that the moral and ethical costs of drone strikes should not be

overlooked. They highlight concerns about dehumanization, the psychological toll on

operators, and the risk of civilian casualties, which they view as significant drawbacks.

They raise substantial legal objections, especially when drone strikes are conducted without

the consent of the target country. The violation of state sovereignty and the issue of

extrajudicial killings are central to their criticisms. Critics also point to the potential for

42
Christopher Sherwood, Department of Defense spokesman, Personal communication with Jack Serle, April
2017.
43
US Director of National Intelligence, Summary of Information Regarding U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes
Outside Areas of Active Hostilities, July 1, 2016.

26
blowback, emphasizing that the anger generated by civilian casualties can lead to

radicalization, further destabilizing regions.44

Conclusion

The ongoing debates and controversies surrounding drone strikes encompass a myriad of

ethical, legal, strategic, and procedural aspects. This multifaceted nature reflects the

complexity of modern warfare and the ever-evolving landscape of armed conflict. The

integration of the aspects of fair trial and due process, particularly in cases of targeted

killings, adds another layer of complexity to the drone strike debate, underlining the

imperative need for ongoing discourse, rigorous examination, and thoughtful policy

development in the realm of military technology and its ethical, legal, and strategic

implications.

1.9. Charting a Way Forward in the Complex Discourse on Drone Strikes

The intricate debate encompassing drone strikes, spanning ethical, legal, practical, and

procedural dimensions, necessitates a holistic approach to guide us through this intricate

landscape. To address the multifaceted challenges and controversies associated with drone

strikes, we must consider a comprehensive strategy that balances the strategic advantages of

this technology with the ethical and legal responsibilities it entails. Here, this paper proposes

a forward-looking approach to navigate this complex terrain.

Addressing Ethical Accountability and Transparency:

In response to ethical concerns, governments employing drone technology must prioritize the

rigorous training of operators. This training should encompass the ethical dimensions of

warfare, emphasizing the paramount importance of minimizing harm to both military

44
International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary IHL: Rule 14. Proportionality in Attack, https://ihl-
databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter4_rule14

27
personnel and civilians, all while scrupulously adhering to the principles of international

humanitarian law.

Moreover, we must advocate for heightened transparency in the drone strike decision-making

process. Governments should regularly release public reports detailing drone strike

operations. These reports should include information regarding the legal basis for the strikes,

the identity of the targets, and the outcomes of these operations. This increased transparency

is not only critical for fostering public trust but also for facilitating external oversight of these

operations.45

Strengthening Legal Frameworks and Respecting Sovereignty:

A constructive way forward involves states collaborating to establish a consensus on the legal

boundaries of drone strikes. This consensus should provide clarity on the circumstances in

which the extraterritorial use of force can be considered justifiable, all while ensuring strict

compliance with international law.

Furthermore, when contemplating drone strikes on foreign soil, it is imperative to engage in

open and cooperative dialogues with host nations. These dialogues should aim to secure the

consent and cooperation of host governments, effectively respecting their sovereignty and

reducing the risk of legal disputes and diplomatic tensions.46

Enhancing Targeted Killings and Due Process:

To allay concerns surrounding due process, it is essential to implement clear procedures for

the targeting of individuals. This includes the establishment of independent review boards

tasked with scrutinizing the evidence and legality of proposed targets. Such measures

underscore the commitment to due process and legal principles in armed conflict.
45
Ibid
46
Chris Woods, “US Claims of No Civilian Deaths Are Untrue,” The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, July
18,
2011, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2011-07-18/us-claims-of-no-civilian-deaths-are-untrue.

28
Additionally, the protection of civilians must be a paramount consideration. This requires the

enforcement of stringent rules of engagement and a concentrated effort to improve the

precision of intelligence to minimize the potential for civilian casualties.

Addressing Unintended Consequences:

Mitigating the risk of unintended consequences demands a comprehensive approach to

counterterrorism. Rather than relying solely on kinetic means, we must explore holistic

strategies that address the root causes of conflict, engage in conflict resolution, and build trust

within affected communities.

In cases where civilian harm does occur, a commitment to reparations and assistance is

essential.47 This acknowledges the moral and legal obligations to those adversely affected by

drone strikes and underscores a dedication to alleviating the suffering and hardships incurred.

Preparing for Future Technological Developments:

As technology advances, our approach must adapt to ensure the ethical use of emerging

technologies in warfare. This includes the establishment of a framework governing the ethical

use of autonomous drones and other advanced tools. Encouraging international collaboration

on the development of rules and standards for these evolving technologies will be crucial in

ensuring their responsible and ethical utilization.

Conclusion

The path forward in the intricate debate over drone strikes encompasses a multifaceted

approach that addresses ethical accountability, adherence to international law, due process,

the protection of civilians, and the ethical application of emerging technologies. Achieving a

harmonious balance between the strategic advantages of drones and the ethical and legal
47
Robin Pagnamenta, “My Dead Mother Wasn’t an Enemy of America. She Was Just an Old Lady,” The Times,
10 November 2012. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-dead-mother-wasntan-enemy-of-america-she-was-
just-an-old-lady-2n8k3djvr9c.

29
responsibilities inherent in modern warfare is a complex but imperative undertaking. By

championing transparency, international cooperation, and an unwavering commitment to

ethical conduct, we can chart a course toward a more responsible and sustainable utilization

of drone technology in conflict scenarios.48

1.10. Conclusion and stand point.

In the realm of drone strikes and their intersection with natural justice and international law, a

comprehensive exploration has revealed critical insights into the ethical considerations and

legal framework governing these modern military operations.

The key findings of this paper are illuminated against the backdrop of a complex ethical

landscape. Drone warfare operates within a framework that demands meticulous adherence to

principles rooted in international humanitarian law. The concepts of necessity, distinction,

proportionality, and precaution guide the use of drones, mirroring the principles of natural

justice. These principles underscore the imperative of fairness and just cause, even within the

tumultuous context of armed conflict. The extensive reach of international human rights law,

guaranteeing fundamental rights and protections to individuals, even in the midst of warfare,

remains a testament to the enduring commitment to the dignity and freedoms of individuals.

Natural justice and due process, at the heart of this discourse, reinforce the fundamental

notions of fairness, justice, and legal protections. They ensure that individuals, even in

conflict zones, retain the right to challenge their designation as legitimate targets and to be

treated in a manner consistent with human rights and ethical principles.

The implications of the drone strike on natural justice and international law are profound.

They challenge traditional concepts of warfare and the ethical foundations that have guided

48
Jack Serle, “US Pays 1M to Italian Couple After Killing Their Son In A Drone Strike,” The Bureau of
Investigative Journalism, 16 September 2016 https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2016-09-16/us-
pays-1m-to-italian-couple-after-killing-theirson-in-a-drone-strike

30
conflicts for centuries. Drone strikes underscore the imperative of aligning military actions

with natural justice and international law. They highlight the evolving legal framework that

necessitates careful consideration to ensure compliance with established international norms.

Drone warfare represents a transformative chapter in the history of armed conflict, calling for

a profound re-evaluation of our ethical and legal commitments. It necessitates placing

individual rights and natural justice at the forefront, even in the face of evolving technologies

and changing paradigms of warfare.

This paper serves as a poignant reminder of the intricate interplay between drone strikes,

natural justice, and international law. It emphasizes the imperative of reconciling military

actions with ethical principles, safeguarding individual rights, and upholding fairness and

justice, even in the most challenging of circumstances. As drone technology continues to

evolve and assert its presence in modern conflict, the ethical and legal questions it poses

become increasingly urgent, shaping the broader landscape of natural justice and international

law.

31