Pandora’s box? Drone strikes under jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and international human rights law - Volume 94 Number 886

Aug 27, 2026

Armed drones threaten both the inter-state prohibition on the use of force and the protection of human rights. In armed conflict, drone use may still comply with key international humanitarian law standards such as distinction and proportionality, though establishing international criminal responsibility for unlawful use can be difficult. Outside the battlefield, drone strikes frequently amount to violations of core human rights. Clear legal guidance and safeguards to curb further drone proliferation are urgently required.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages29

Reading Time1 h 13 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Armed drones and inter-state use of force

Compliance with international humanitarian law on the battlefield

Human rights risks outside armed conflict

Need for legal clarity and restraint

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012 Pandora’s box? Drone strikes under jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and international human rights law Stuart Casey-Maslen* Dr Stuart Casey-Maslen is Head of Research at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, specializing in weapons law and compliance with international norms by armed non-state actors. Abstract Armed drones pose a major threat to the general prohibition on the inter-state use of force and to respect for human rights. On the battleﬁeld, in a situation of armed conﬂict, the use of armed drones may be able to satisfy the fundamental international humanitarian law rules of distinction and proportionality (although attributing international criminal responsibility for their unlawful use may prove a signiﬁcant challenge). Away from the battleﬁeld, the use of drone strikes will often amount toa violation of fundamental human rights. Greater clarity on the applicable legal regime along with restraints to prevent the further proliferation of drone technology are urgently needed. Keywords: armed conflict, direct participation in hostilities, drone, human rights, international humanitarian law, law enforcement, targeted killing, unmanned aerial vehicle. * The author would like to thank Professor Andrew Clapham, Professor Nils Melzer, and Bonnie Docherty for their comments on a draft of this article, and Alice Priddy for her background research. All the Internet references were accessed in October 2012, unless otherwise stated. doi:10 . 1017/S1816383113000118 597 Some have called such operations ‘assassinations’. They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. US Attorney General, Eric Holder, 5 March 2012 1 Over the last ten years, the use of drones – unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or unmanned aircraft2 – for military and counterterrorism purposes has seen‘explosive growth’.3 For example, it is reported that in 2010, United States President Barack Obama’s administration authorized more than twice as many drone strikes in north-west Pakistan than it did in 2009 – ‘itself a year in which there were more drone strikes than during George W. Bush’s entire time in ofﬁce’.4 By early 2012, the Pentagon was said to have 7,500 drones under its control, representing about one-third of all US military aircraft.5 Use of UAVs by police forces in connection with traditional law enforcement within a state’s borders has also been steadily growing, albeit at a lesser pace.6 Drones7 were ﬁrst deployed on a signiﬁcant scale for surveillance and reconnaissance in armed conﬂict by the United States of America: in Vietnam in 1 Speech to the Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, 5 March 2012, available at: [http://www](http://www). [lawfareblog.com/2012/03/text-of-the-attorney-generals-national-security-speech/](lawfareblog.com/2012/03/text-of-the-attorney-generals-national-security-speech/) . 2 According to US Federal legislation adopted in 2012, the term ‘unmanned aircraft’ means ‘an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft’. Section 331(8), FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, signed into law by the US President on 14 February 2012. 3 US Department of Defence, ‘US unmanned systems integrated roadmap (ﬁscal years 2009–2034)’, Washington, DC, 2009, p. 2, available at: [http://www.acq.osd.mil/psa/docs/UMSIntegratedRoadmap2009](http://www.acq.osd.mil/psa/docs/UMSIntegratedRoadmap2009). pdf. Presumably no pun was intended. 4 Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann, ‘Hidden war, there were more drone strikes – and far fewer civilians killed’, in New America Foundation, 22 December 2010, available at: [http://newamerica.net/node/](http://newamerica.net/node/)[ ](http://newamerica.net/node/)[41927](41927.)[.](41927.) 5 W. J. Hennigan, ‘New drone has no pilot anywhere, so who’s accountable?’, in Los Angeles Times, 26 January

FAQs

为什么武装无人机（armed drones）会被认为对国际法构成重大威胁？

其可能影响国家间使用武力的一般禁止，并同时冲击人权保护要求。在战场内外都存在不同性质的法律风险。

在武装冲突中使用武装无人机时，如何理解其与国际人道法的关系？

在武装冲突环境中，使用武装无人机“可能”满足区分与相称等国际人道法基本规则，但将非法使用追究到国际刑事责任可能具有显著挑战。

为什么说战场之外的无人机打击往往会构成人权侵害？

文中指出，远离战场时，无人机打击通常会构成对基本人权的违反，因此需要更清晰的适用法律框架与抑制无人机技术扩散的限制措施。

Aug 27, 2026

Upload by River Wang