Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: The Debate on Ethicality
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or more commonly known as “drones,” have been at the
forefront of the United States’ military today. These weapons have proven to be insurmountable
in providing surveillance and strikes in hostile regions of the world. Unmanned aerial vehicles
have also been at the forefront of vehement debate both domestically and internationally. In
discussions of government and world affairs, the ever-increasing usage of UAVs led to questions
about the ethicality of such actions. While some people argue that UAVs are beneficial due to
their flexibility and accuracy, others contend that UAV strikes abroad kill innocent civilians,
which is a violation of international humanitarian law and the Just War Theory. In the future,
however, international organizations should definitely amend these laws in order to
accommodate this new and revolutionary weapon.
The roots of UAVs can be traced back to the mid nineteenth century during the Venetian
uprisings against Austria. This is the earliest surviving record of an unmanned aerial vehicle
being used in warfare. According to a 17 Mar. 1849 article printed in the Scientific American:
Venice is to be bombarded by balloons, as the lagunes [lagoons] prevent the
approaching of artillery. Five balloons, each twenty-three feet in diameter, are in
construction at Trevio. In a favorable wind the balloons will be launched and
directed as near to Venice as possible, and on their being brought to vertical
positions over the town, the fire will be given by electro magnetism…The bomb
falls perpendicularly and explodes on reaching the ground. (205)
One witness to this extraordinary event described the scene:
The balloons appeared to rise to about 4,500 ft. Then they exploded in midair or
fell into the water, or, blown by a sudden southeast wind, sped over the city and
dropped on the besiegers. Venetians, abandoning their homes, crowded into the
streets and squares to enjoy the strange spectacle. … Applause was greatest when
the balloons blew over the Austrian forces and exploded, and in such cases the
Venetians added cries of “Bravo!” and “Good appetite!” (“Foreign News”)
While the Austrians assaulted the city of Venice with approximately two hundred of these
devices, the wind suddenly changed course and began to blow the balloons back towards the way
they came. Nonetheless, the effects of these unmanned aerial vehicles contributed to suppressing
the Venetians and gained notoriety (Naughton).
The first recorded use of UAVs in the United States occurred during the Civil War (18611865). In New York City, an inventor by the name of Charles Perley designed a balloon with a
basket laden with explosives. The basket was attached to a timing device and then explosives
were then dropped (“Time Line”). As these explosives plummeted, they were simultaneously
ignited and exploded upon the enemy below. The destructive capacity of Mr. Perley’s device,
however, was ineffective to say the least. Just as the balloons used in 1849, the wind blew the
balloons used in the Civil War right back to where they came thus rendering the mission a failure.
During World War I, Archibald Low conceived the concept for a more modernized UAV.
Low was at the forefront of developing guided rockets, planes, and torpedoes during this time
period and thus earned the nickname “Father of Radio Guidance Systems” (“Archibald Low”).
He used his knowledge to develop the first UAV nicknamed “Aerial Target.” When he tested the
aircraft, it was uncontrollable and proceeded to crash into the ground. One British officer called
Low’s experiment a “queer little aeroplane.” Nonetheless, this sparked the beginning of the
remotely controlled aircraft era (Sale).
The United States Department of Defense defines UAVs as “Powered aerial vehicles
sustained in flight by aerodynamic lift over most of their flight path and guided without an
onboard crew. They may be expendable or recoverable and can fly autonomously or piloted
remotely.” It is important to understand that the term “unmanned” does not necessarily mean that
humans have no control whatsoever. Rather, “unmanned” is designated to mean “remotelypiloted” where there is no human pilot actually in the cockpit. The term UAV was coined in the
early 1990s to describe robotic aircraft. During this time, interest for unmanned aviation swelled
and interest for UAV technology gained much momentum (Newcome 1). Kimon P. Valavanis
states that “In 1997, the total income of the UAV global market, including the Vertical Take-Off
and Landing (VTOL) segment, reached 2.27 billion dollars, a 9.5% increase from 1996”
(Valavanis 3-4). In 2000, the DOD invested 284 million dollars in UAV research. According to
the Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (CRSRC), in 2012, the Department of
Defense (DOD) has “asked for a 3.9 billion dollar procurement and development funding” for
UAVs. In 2013, the spending increased to 7.5 billion dollars and many predict that it will reach
11 billion dollars in 2022 (Harris). The CRSRC states that the reason for such increases is due to
increasing military technology and enemy targets that blend in with the civilian population
(Gertler 2). These statistics should indicate that UAVs are a growing part of the United States’
military today. Currently, the United States military has around seventy-five thousand UAVs
whereas in 2001, the military had fewer than fifty (Bergen). Unmanned aerial vehicles have had
a dominating presence in the twenty-first century and even more so with the “War on Terror”
and the Obama Administration.
Unmanned aerial vehicles have long been lauded as revolutionizing modern combat.
Advocates of UAVs have identified more flexibility in warfare and significantly reduced combat
deaths. Also, supporters of UAVs express that these weapons have been able to track and
eliminate wanted terrorists.
Daniel Bruntstetter, a Professor of Political Science at the School of Social Sciences at
the University of California, states that the advantages of UAVs fall into two categories:
surveillance and warfare. Concerning surveillance, Mr. Bruntstetter declares: “Drones are
capable of slipping across international borders with relative ease without putting human
personnel at risk. Their ability to loiter over targets allows them to observe ‘patterns of life’ to
provide surveillance data 24/7, identify and track potential targets, and determine the best time to
strike to avoid civilian casualties” (Bruntstetter). In terms of military usage, Mr. Bruntstetter
states that UAVs are beneficial due to their capabilities of pinpoint accuracy and reduction of
collateral damage. Kenneth Anderson, a Professor of Law at American University described
UAV strikes as “limited, pinprick, and covert” (Anderson 5). Unmanned aerial vehicles also
remove pilots from entering into potentially hostile area to survey the enemy or to engage in
warfare directly which greatly diminishes casualties. Dr. Denis Rey, Professor of Government
and World Affairs at The University of Tampa states, when questioned, that the United States
sees UAV strikes as a definite advantage. He postulates, “Anytime the United States can
confront an enemy on the battlefield and not put American lives at risk is a good thing.”
Unmanned aerial vehicles have also been influential in taking down many terrorists that
have evaded our ground troops. From Atiyah Abd al-Rahman to Anwar al-Awlaki, UAVs have
been critical to cripple the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This is one of the reasons
many people support the use of such weaponry. Jenna Jordan, a PhD candidate at the University
of Chicago, states that “Many academics and policy makers have argued in favor of targeting the
leaders of terrorist organizations despite the variability of its success rate” (722). Ms. Jordan
believes that targeted killings are vital to crippling the leadership of smaller; less organized
terrorist groups rather than larger, well-organized groups. Operations to kill such leaders of terror
are said by the United States government to be a just cause. According to an article in The New
York Times, the policy on targeted killing, as defined by experts in counterterrorism is shaped by
many different factors: “availability of a weapon that does not risk American casualties, the
resistance of authorities, and the decreasing urgency of interrogation” (Shane). Many enemies
now chose to hide out in mountainous regions. These are areas that prove difficult for the
deployment of our own soldiers. The “War on Terror” has been fought on the terrorist’s home
turf. They know the land extremely well, and our soldiers do not. However, by utilizing UAVs,
the United States can eliminate the stresses of being deployed in an unfamiliar geographic
location and take out targets that are hiding. The advantage here is that UAVs are in the sky, as
opposed to land-based missions, patrolling with advanced cameras and weapons.
Advocates of UAV strikes argue that the weapon itself does not kill people but people
kill people and thus it adheres to the Rules of Engagement in warfare. According to an article in
the Global Security Studies, Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations has a loophole that
justifies targeted killings. The journal states:
The ability to conduct acts in self-defense though, is defended in Article 51 of the
charter when it states the following:
‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council
has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security’
Nothing in Article 51 of the Charter stipulates that it cannot be a non-state actor
against which measures are taken, or that the state must gain consent from whence
the instigating attacks are originating although one could surmise that such
consent is implicit through treaty as a signatory of the U.N. Charter. (Llenza 52)
Although there have been many supporters for UAVs, they have been met with stiff
opposition. Many critics turn to the Just War Theory of warfare (jus ad bellum and jus in bello)
and the Charter of the United Nations, while others turn to the humanitarian side (exempli gratia
– protection of civilians).
The Just War Theory (justim bellum) is a set of actions that state how and why wars
should be fought. It is as old as warfare itself and has gone through a renaissance in the twentieth
and twenty-first centuries due to the onset of more advanced weaponry. In his interview, Dr. Rey
describes the Just War Theory as “Basically telling us the only reason a country can use violence
or force is to repel an aggressor. Once an aggressor has attacked, then the use of force is justified.
However, one cannot use more force than the situation requires and one must do everything
possible to curtail or eliminate the threat to civilians.”
The Just War Theory consists of two main parts: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad
bellum describes when wars may be fought. Specifically, it is described in the Charter of the
United Nations. The jus in bello states how wars may be fought. More commonly, jus in bello is
referred to as international humanitarian law. The purpose of this law, as described by the
International Committee of the Red Cross, is to “limit the suffering caused by war by protecting
and assisting its victims as far as possible.” The Just War Theory has been influential in creating
the general laws seen today concerning warfare. It has served as the backbone for the rules of
international humanitarian law that, in return, led to the development and institutionalization of
the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Convention.
The Charter of the United Nations was ratified in 1945. This set of laws forms the legal
basis in which one can judge UAV strikes. One of the purposes of this charter is to “to reaffirm
faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal
rights of men and women and of nations large and small” (“Preamble”). Within the Charter of
the United Nations, there are specific protocols that must be followed for a “civilized” war. One
must be that in order for an attack to be carried out, there must be a formal declaration of war
against that country. According to The Guardian: “International legal action has mostly focused
on the US programme of targeted killings by drones in Pakistan's tribal lands, Yemen and
Somalia – states where there is no declared war or United Nations-authorised conflict” (Bowcott).
University of Notre Dame Professor of Law and Research Mary Ellen O’Connell states that:
Resorting to the military force of drones in the first instance, prior to the
development of armed conflict hostilities, is governed by the law on resort to
military force found most importantly in the United Nations Charter. The Charter,
in Article 2(4), generally prohibits the use of major military force. Article 2(4)
prohibits military force of more than a minor or de minimis nature. (2-3)
Also important in the arguments of critics is Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations. This article governs the use of force as self-defense. In one case, the International Court
of Justice clarified that the use of self-defense must be used in response to a significant attack,
not a borderline skirmish or the shipments of weapons to other insurgents (O’Connell). She goes
on to describe that this is what the United States is violating. Unmanned aerial vehicles are being
used to strike low-level insurgents that are merely trying to recruit more people for their cause
and distribute weapons. While this may be alarming, the uses of UAVs are too much of military
force. She concludes her argument by stating: “[A] strategic centerpiece of U.S. counterterrorism
policy rests upon legal grounds regarded as deeply illegal…by large and influential parts of the
international community (O’Connell).”
The Geneva Convention, as described by Cornell University Law School is “Under this
Convention, civilians are afforded the protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded
in the first Convention to sick and wounded soldiers. Furthermore, additional regulations
regarding the treatment of civilians were introduced.” Critics of UAV strikes point out in the
Geneva Convention, Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol 1. It states, “The civilian population as
such, as well as individual citizens, shall not be the subject of attack. Acts or threats of violence
the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited”
(Byers 116). An example that does not seem to follow this protocol occurred on 05 Aug. 2009.
An American Predator drone killed Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. This
was not without incident, however, as it took “sixteen strikes, fourteen months and between 207
and 321 additional deaths to finally kill him” (Callam). While in this case many Pakistanis
celebrated his death, it is without a doubt that most of the time they condemn UAV strikes
because of civilian deaths.
A study conducted by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law
states that ordinary citizens in drone affected areas experience trauma, and said drone warfare
has been largely ineffective. Only two percent of “high level” targets have been killed. “This
study casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian
casualties and alleges that the United States makes ‘efforts to shield the drone program from
democratic accountability’” (CNN Wire Staff). Many ethicists and religious leaders have also
questioned the morality of this matter. They argue that it violates international humanitarian law
and parts of the Just War theory. The New Yorker quotes:
Under international law, in order for the U.S. government to legally target civilian
terror suspects abroad it has to define a terrorist group as one engaging in armed
conflict, and the use of force must be a “military necessity.” There must be no
reasonable alternative to killing, such as capture, and to warrant death the target
must be “directly participating in hostilities.” The use of force has to be
considered “proportionate” to the threat. Finally, the foreign nation in which such
targeted killing takes place has to give its permission. (Mayer)
The Christian Century states, “while the drone attacks have no doubt killed terrorists and
leaders of al-Qaeda, ‘they raise troubling questions to those committed to the just war principle
that civilians should never be targeted’” (“Remote-control”). Also, according to The New York
Times: “Human rights advocates argue that some drone strikes have amounted to extrajudicial
killings, the execution without trial of people suspected of being militants whose identities
American officials often do not know and who sometimes pose little to no threat to the United
States” (Shane). RT News published an article stating:
A trove of leaked classified reports has confirmed what many had suspected – US
drone kills in Pakistan are not the precision strikes against top-level al-Qaeda
terrorists they are portrayed as by the Obama administration. Instead, many of the
attacks are aimed at suspected low-level tribal militants, who may pose no direct
danger to the United States – and for many there appears to be little evidence to
justify the assassinations. Between 1,990 and 3,308 people have been reported to
be killed in the drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. (“Leaked Report”)
The concept of UAV warfare is an extremely sensitive topic. It has met passionate
opposition from supporters and critics of UAVs. It seems that the only way to effectively resolve
this situation is to revise the laws that govern warfare. There seems to be a large area of
uncertainty surrounding the notion of UAVs and the strikes that are associated with these
weapons. Debates have been closely watched and there seems to be no clear answer to whether
UAVs are ethical or not. The reason being, both sides have ample evidence that refutes the
other’s claims. Unmanned aerial vehicles are rapidly expanding and seem to be outpacing the
legal framework. As UAVs continue to carry out forays, it seems that the definition of these
weapons becomes less analogous compared to conventional weapon systems. Thus, the laws of
war will need to keep up with this fast paced world. Dr. Rey believes that the laws of war will
“absolutely” be rewritten. “I think as drones become widespread, you will see laws and policies
and treaties, international laws if you will, dictate the guidelines of proper use of drones. That
will follow as drones expand. This might lead to fewer backlashes. Some types of protocol will
be implemented that may dictate proper or improper use of drone use” (Rey).
The twentieth century definition of warfare does not apply to today’s twenty-first century
definition. With increased technology and the onset of UAVs, war has taken on a whole different
meaning. As many have seen in the news, or by personal accounts, UAVs have been at the
forefront of the Obama administration’s plan for counterterrorism efforts. Everyone seems to
have some type of view on UAVs and international laws set in place. In order for agreement, or
at least clarification to make UAVs more just, the laws of warfare must be rewritten. In order to
do so, everyone must take the time to understand how quickly technology is changing the world.
Secondly, rules and norms of warfare have evolved over centuries with one thing in mind: to
protect civilians.
Due to the continuous debate on whether the usage of UAVs are ethical or not, it has
come to a conclusion that due to a large “grey area” exists within the Charter of the United
Nations and the Geneva Convention. There is no correct answer on whether UAVs are actually
principled. Debates have yielded no advancement on this topic as both supporters and critics
have ample evidence that supports and refutes one another’s statements. Previously, there were
two different views on UAV strikes that were based on the Charter of the United Nations’ Article
51. Both argued that this charter effectively allows or condemns the ability to carry out UAV
strikes and promotes the welfare of civilians. As a side note, the Charter of the United Nations
was conceived right after the Allied victory of World War II. This was ultimately a result the
deliberate targeting of both the Allies’ and Axis’ civilian population. Many military strategists
thought that attacking civilians was the way to the downfall of a country. Adolph Hitler attacked
British municipalities and the United States used the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were lost during World War II. The Charter
of the United Nations has only undergone five amendments post 1945, none coming under
Article 51. It seems that due to the uncertainty over UAVs and the rapidly expanding technology
of warfare today, Article 51 needs to be revised to fit current weapons of war.
All laws evolve. Why? Change is constant. Everything in this universe changes and
evolves. The survival of a nation is dependent on its adaptability. This world is extremely fluid
and so is the technology of today. Over the course of human history, weapons have been
developed to inflict more damage from longer distances. It is interesting to note that technology
develops more quickly than legislation. Thus, international laws of warfare need to keep up with
the more advanced military weaponry being created. As a result of more technologically
progressive weaponry, this has led to the definition of war itself being changed. Now, war is not
fought between countries for what is right but between non-uniformed combatants who have
ideals or beliefs that they want to impose on the world. The truth is the terrorists that we are
engaging over in the Middle East make it nearly impossible to distinguish regular people
between combatants. They wear the same clothes, live in the same houses as everyone else.
There are no men in pristine uniforms with medals, but men with shawls, tee shirts, and jeans.
This is done solely for a military advantage. In order for consolation to UAV warfare, to occur
the laws regarding civilians must change. By all means protecting civilians is a priority that the
United States military enforces, but it has come under tough scrutiny.
In conclusion, the premeditated bombings of targets using UAVs are a topic of
widespread debate. While many that favor the usage of such force to be of ethical standards
because war is war and that this enemy is a direct threat to our country, others counter argue that
it is immoral due to the fact that there are civilians that are targeted and it has shown to be
largely ineffective. As of right now, there is no straightforward answer to whether UAVs are
ethically right to use. Currently, the ethicality of such a weapon lies within the eyes of the
beholder. However, when, and only when international organizations ratify the laws of warfare,
then there can be an ethical case for UAVs, or, at the very least clarify the attacks that are carried
out. Society always strives for a greater good. The question that seems to be always asked is “Is
it justified?” For society to survive, it must move towards a greater good or be destroyed. War is
never a good thing, and UAVs have been at the center of copious debate. What is certain, for
societies to exist in war and peace, is for the laws of warfare to be revised. As former Secretary
of Defense William Perry once said “We live in an age that is driven by information.
Technological breakthroughs are changing the face of war and how we prepare for war.”
Works Cited
Anderson, Kenneth. “Rise of the Drone: Unmanned Systems and the Future of War.” Digital
Commons. American University, Washington College of Law, 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 20
Apr. 2013.
“Archibald Low: The Father of Radio Guidance Systems.” New Mexico Museum of Space
History. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2013.
Bergen, Peter. “A Dangerous New World of Drones.” CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, 06
Mar. 2013.
Bowcott, Owen. “The legal dilemma over drone strikes: justified killings or war crimes?” The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 02 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Byers, Michael. War Law. New York: Grove Press, 2005. Print.
CNN Wire Staff. “Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says.”
CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, 26 Sept. 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2013.
Cole, Chris, and Wright, Jim. “What are drones?” Jan. 2010. Photograph. Drone Wars UK. Web.
07 Mar. 2013.
“Foreign News: Bravo!” Time Magazine. Time Inc., 25 Jul. 1949. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
“Geneva Conventions.” Cornell University Law School. Cornell University. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Haddal, Chad C., and Gertler, Jeremiah. “Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and
Border Surveillance.” Federation of American Scientists. Federation of American
Scientists, 2010. Web. 07 Mar. 2013.
“Interesting Facts about Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.” Chart. graphs.net. graphs.net. Web. 30 Apr.
2013.
Jordan, Jenna. “When Heads Roll: Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Decapitation.”
Security Studies, 18 (2009): 722. CPOST. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
Llenza, Michael S. “Targeted Killings in Pakistan: A Defense.” Global Security Studies 2.2
(2011): 52. Global Security Studies. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
Mayer, Jane. “The Predator War.” Newyorker.com. Condé Nast, 26 Oct. 2009. Web. 07 Mar.
2013.
“More about Balloons.” Scientific American. Mar. 1849: 205. Cornell University Library:
Making of America. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.
Naughton, Russell. “Remote Piloted Aerial Vehicles: An Anthology.” Monash University
Engineering. CTIE, 02 Feb. 2003. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.
Newcome, Laurence R. “Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.”
Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004. Google
Scholar. Web. 06 Mar. 2013.
O’Connell, Mary Ellen. “Drones under International Law.” Washington University Law, 08 Oct.
2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
O’Connell, Mary Ellen. “ The International Law of Drones.” American Society of International
Law. AMO, 12 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
“Preamble.” Charter of the United Nations. UN Publications. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
“Remote-control warfare: Troubling questions.” The Christian Century. The Christian Century,
18 May. 2010. Web. 07 Mar. 2013.
Rey, Denis A. Personal Interview. 12 Apr. 2013.
RT News. “Leaked report: Nearly half of US drone strikes in Pakistan not against al-Qaeda.”
TV-Novosti, 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
Sale, Jonathan. “The Secret History of drones.” The Guardian. The Guardian, 10 Feb. 2013.
Web. 07 Mar. 2013.
Shane, Scott. “Targeted Killing Comes to Define War on Terror.” The New York Times. 08 Apr.
2013: A1. Print.
“Time Line of UAVs.” NOVA. WGBH, Apr. 2004. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.
U.S. Department of Defense. "Introduction of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)." UAV:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. U.S. Department of Defense, 03 Jun. 2003. Web. 06 Mar.
2013.
“U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems.” Scribd. Scribd, 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2013.
Valavanis, Kimon P. “Advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: State of the Art and the Road to
Autonomy.” Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007. Google Scholar. Web. 07 Mar.
2013.