The Legality of Drone Use Under International Humanitarian Law: Theoretical Perspectives and Case Law Insights
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. The Legal Framework of Drones Under International Humanitarian Law. – 3.1. Definition and Nature of Drones. – 3.2. Relevant International Humanitarian Law Principles. – 4. Practical Examples of Drone Usage in Modern Conflicts. – 4.1. US Drone Operations in the Middle East. – 4.2. Israel’s Use of Drones in Gaza. – 4.3. Challenges in Ensuring Compliance with International Humanitarian Law. – 5. Court Cases and Judicial Rulings. – 5.1. International Court of Justice (ICJ) Cases. – 5.2. International Criminal Court (ICC) on Crimes of Aggression and Self-Defense. – 5.3. The Role of International Justice and Accountability. – 5.4. Balancing Theory and Practical Implementation. – 6. Conclusions.
Background: Modern warfare is increasingly characterised by the use of drone technology to manage and operate aerial systems for surveillance and target identification. Initially, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were primarily used for surveillance. However, their active involvement in military operations has raised significant legal questions regarding their status under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The expanded use of drone strikes beyond conventional war zones has brought to light critical issues related to state sovereignty, the principle of distinction, and the principle of proportionality in armed conflict. With the growing reliance on drones in conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East by the United States and Israel, concerns have emerged regarding civilian safety and military accountability.
Methods: This study employs a literature review approach and conducts doctrinal legal research, drawing primarily on primary sources such as the United Nations Charter and secondary sources, including case law like the Corfu Channel Case and Nicaragua v. United States. Journal articles, academic research papers, and reports from human rights organisations were analysed to assess the application of International Humanitarian Law in the context of drone warfare. Case studies from Pakistan, Gaza, and Yemen were examined to evaluate the practical implementation of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. These examples were used to assess legal standards and state compliance in minimising civilian casualties.
Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals that while drones provide strategic advantages, their use often violates the fundamental principles of IHL. Drone strikes in Yemen and Gaza have demonstrated instances where civilian casualties were inadequately avoided, raising serious concerns about adherence to the principles of proportionality and distinction. The study also highlights that states employing drone strikes, particularly the U.S. and Israel, bear accountability for civilian deaths despite the lack of a robust legal framework to address such issues. To address these challenges, there is a pressing need for international laws that enhance oversight and ensure compliance with IHL, particularly in safeguarding civilians during armed conflict. Consequently, there is a growing call for stronger international regulation to ensure that the use of force aligns with the protection of civilian populations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) for funding this research. The funding details are as follows: Funding Agency: United Arab Emirates University (UAEU)
Project & Fund No.: 12L018
Abstract
Background: Modern warfare is increasingly characterised by the use of drone technology to manage and operate aerial systems for surveillance and target identification. Initially, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were primarily used for surveillance. However, their active involvement in military operations has raised significant legal questions regarding their status under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The expanded use of drone strikes beyond conventional war zones has brought to light critical issues related to state sovereignty, the principle of distinction, and the principle of proportionality in armed conflict. With the growing reliance on drones in conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East by the United States and Israel, concerns have emerged regarding civilian safety and military accountability.
Methods: This study employs a literature review approach and conducts doctrinal legal research, drawing primarily on primary sources such as the United Nations Charter and secondary sources, including case law like the Corfu Channel Case and Nicaragua v. United States. Journal articles, academic research papers, and reports from human rights organisations were analysed to assess the application of International Humanitarian Law in the context of drone warfare. Case studies from Pakistan, Gaza, and Yemen were examined to evaluate the practical implementation of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. These examples were used to assess legal standards and state compliance in minimising civilian casualties.
Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals that while drones provide strategic advantages, their use often violates the fundamental principles of IHL. Drone strikes in Yemen and Gaza have demonstrated instances where civilian casualties were inadequately avoided, raising serious concerns about adherence to the principles of proportionality and distinction. The study also highlights that states employing drone strikes, particularly the U.S. and Israel, bear accountability for civilian deaths despite the lack of a robust legal framework to address such issues. To address these challenges, there is a pressing need for international laws that enhance oversight and ensure compliance with IHL, particularly in safeguarding civilians during armed conflict. Consequently, there is a growing call for stronger international regulation to ensure that the use of force aligns with the protection of civilian populations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) for funding this research. The funding details are as follows: Funding Agency: United Arab Emirates University (UAEU)
Project & Fund No.: 12L018
About Authors
Driss Ed.daran*
PhD (Law), Assistant Professor, College of Law, Public Law Department, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9954-7249
Corresponding author, responsible for conceptualization, funding acquisition, formal analysis, methodology, project administration, supervision, validation, writing-original draft.
Fatima Ezzohra El Hajraoui
PhD (Law), Associate Professor, College of Law, Ibn-Tofail University, Kenitra, Marocco
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9074-8799
Co-author, responsible for data curation, investigation, resources, writing-original draft.
Zaid Ali Zaid
PhD (Law), Associate Professor, College of Law, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7213-5700
Co-author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing-original draft.
Riad Al Ajlani
PhD (Law), Associate Professor, College of Law, Department of Public Law, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Co-author, responsible for project administration, funding acquisition, investigation, supervision, formal analysis, data curation, writing – review & editing.
Zia-ud-Din Malik
PhD (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Law, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6015-0914
Co-author, responsible for data curation, writing – review & editing.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The authors declare that their opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Rights and Permissions
Copyright: © 2025 Driss Ed.dran, Fatima Ezzohra El Hajraoui, Zaid Ali Zaid, Riad Al Ajlani and Zia-ud-Din Malik. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Ahmad N, Rahim F and Aziz N, ‘Can International Humanitarian Law Regulate Recent Drone Strikes?: A Case Study’ (2024) 17(1) Journal of East Asia and International Law 159, doi:10.14330/jeail.2024.17.1.09.
2. Al Shawhati MS, ‘Impact of the United States Policy in Supporting the Saudi War in Yemen during the Term of the Trump Administration and the Joe Biden Administration’ (PhD thesis, San Francisco State University 2023).
3. Ali I, ‘Mainstreaming Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas: Reform Initiatives and Roadblocks’ (United States Institute of Peace, 20 March 2018) <https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/03/mainstreaming-pakistans-federally-administered-tribal-areas> accessed 26 December 2024.
4. Beard J, ‘The Principle of Proportionality in an Era of High Technology’ in Ford CM and Williams WS (eds), Complex Battlespaces: The Law of Armed Conflict and the Dynamics of Modern Warfare (Lieber Studies Series 1, OUP 2018) 261.
5. Bitar M and Chakka B, ‘Drone Attacks During Armed Conflict: Quest for Legality and Regulation’ (2023) 13(3-4) International Journal of Intellectual Property Management 397, doi:10.1504/IJIPM.2023.134058.
6. Brooks R, ‘Drones and Cognitive Dissonance’ in Bergen PL and Rothenberg D (eds), Drone Wars: Transforming Conflict, Law, and Policy (CUP 2014) 230.
7. Byrne M, ‘Consent and the Use of Force: An Examination of “Intervention by Invitation” as a Basis for US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen’ (2016) 3(1) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 97, doi:10.1080/20531702.2015.1135658.
8. Cohen A and Zlotogorski D, Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law: Consequences, Precautions, and Procedures (Lieber Studies Series 6, OUP 2021) doi:10.1093/oso/9780197556726.001.0001.
9. Cortright D, Fairhurst R and Wall K (eds), Drones and the Future of Armed Conflict: Ethical, Legal, and Strategic Implications (University of Chicago Press 2015).
10. Cronin AK, Power to the People: How Open Technological Innovation Is Arming Tomorrow’s Terrorists(OUP 2020).
11. Davison N, ‘A Legal Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems Under International Humanitarian Law’ (ICRC, 30 2018) <https://www.icrc.org/en/document/autonomous-weapon-systems-under-international-humanitarian-law> accessed 25 December 2024.
12. Del Mar K, ‘The International Court of Justice and Standards of Proof’ in Bannelier K, Christakis T and Heathcote S (eds), The ICJ and the Evolution of International Law: The Enduring Impact of the Corfu Channel Case (Routledge 2012) 98.
13. Deng F, ‘From “Sovereignty as Responsibility” to the “Responsibility to Protect”’ (2010) 2(4) Global Responsibility to Protect 353, doi:10.1163/187598410X519534.
14. Dubberley S, Koenig A and Murray D (eds), Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation, and Accountability (OUP 2020).
15. Dunn DH and others, Drones, Force and Law: European Perspectives (CUP 2023) doi:10.1017/9781009451499.
16. Ed.daran D, Akhtar R and Altaf HSS, ‘The International Legal Framework with Regards to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine’ (2023) 3(1) Pakistan Journal of Criminal Justice 40, doi:10.62585/pjcj.v3i1.18.
17. Fitzmaurice MA, ‘The Corfu Channel Case and the Development of International Law’ in Ando N and others (eds), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, vol 1 (Brill 2022) 119, doi:10.1163/9789004531161_015.
18. Grzebyk P, ‘Crime of Aggression against Ukraine’ (2023) 21(3) Journal of International Criminal Justice435, doi:10.1093/jicj/mqad045.
19. Gusterson H, Drone: Remote Control Warfare (MIT Press 2016).
20. Henderson IS, Keane P and Liddy J, ‘Remote and Autonomous Warfare Systems: Precautions in Attack and Individual Accountability’ in Ohlin JD (ed), Research Handbook on Remote Warfare (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017) 335.
21. Khoirunnisa K and others, ‘The Ukraine-Russia Conflict: An International Humanitarian Law Review of the Involvement of Foreign Fighters’ (2025) 11 Social Sciences & Humanities Open 101340, doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101340.
22. Kowalczewska K, ‘Legal Aspects of Unmanned Warfare and Military Drone Operations’ in Zombory K and Szilágyi JE (eds), Shielding Europe with the Common Security and Defence Policy: The EU Legal Framework for the Development of an Innovative European Defence Industry in Times of a Changing Global Security Environment (Central European Academic Publishing 2024) 581, doi:10.54237/profnet.2024.zkjeszcodef_13.
23. Kumar A, ‘Drone Proliferation and Security Threats’ (2020) 33(1/2) Indian Journal of Asian Affairs 43.
24. Marchuk I, ‘Ukraine and the International Criminal Court: Implications of the Ad Hoc Jurisdiction Acceptance and Beyond’ (2021) 49(2) Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 323.
25. Marshall M and Oxley JC (eds), Aspects of Explosives Detection (Elsevier Science 2011) doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-374533-0.X0001-3.
26. McNiel CM, ‘The Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki: How the United States Lost a Crucial Battle in the War of Ideas’ (PhD thesis, Air Command and Staff College, Air University 2016).
27. Mohsan SAH and others, ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): Practical Aspects, Applications, Open Challenges, Security Issues, and Future Trends’ (2023) 16(1) Intelligent Service Robotics 109, doi:10.1007/s11370-022-00452-4.
28. Okpaleke FN, Drones and US Grand Strategy in the Contemporary World (New Security Challenges, Springer 2023) 103-44, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47730-0.
29. Ozubide A, ‘Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors and the Transformation of the Law of Self-Defence’ (PhD thesis, University of Pretoria 2016).
30. Page JM and Williams J, ‘Drones, Afghanistan, and Beyond: Towards Analysis and Assessment in Context’ (2022) 7(3) European Journal of International Security 283, doi:10.1017/eis.2021.19.
31. Paust JJ, ‘Operationalizing Use of Drones Against Non-State Terrorists Under the International Law of Self-Defense’ (2015) 8(1) Albany Government Law Review 166.
32. Pons Rafols X, ‘The War in Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Turning Point in the Midst of an Endless Cycle of Violence’ (2024) 12 Paix et Securite Internationales 1, doi:10.25267/Paix_secur_int.2024.i12.1002.
33. Radman H, ‘Al-Qaeda’s Strategic Retreat in Yemen’ (Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies, 17 April 2019) <https://sanaacenter.org/publications/analysis/7306> accessed 26 December 2024.
34. Seixas-Nunes A, The Legality and Accountability of Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Humanitarian Law Perspective (CUP 2022) doi:10.1017/9781009090001.
35. Steyn NR, ‘The Adequacy of International Humanitarian Law in Regulating the Challenges Posed by Drone Warfare’ (PhD thesis, North-West University 2019) doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17222.24646.
36. Theussen A, ‘International Law Is Dead, Long Live International Law: The State Practice of Drone Strikes’ (2023) 60 International Politics 859, doi:10.1057/s41311-021-00333-0.
37. Townley S, ‘The Rise and Risk in International Law’ (2017) 18(2) Chicago Journal of International Law 594.
38. Tsilonis V, ‘Lethal Autonomous Weapons, Drones and Robots: To What Extent Their Usage Infringes Upon Established Principles of International Criminal Law?’ in Tsilonis V, The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (2nd edn, Springer 2024) 299, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46138-5_11.
39. Walsh JI, ‘Precision Weapons, Civilian Casualties, and Support for the Use of Force’ (2015) 36(5) Political Psychology 507, doi:10.1111/pops.12175.
40. Welsh J and Banda M, ‘International Law and the Responsibility to Protect: Clarifying or Expanding States' Responsibilities?’ (2010) 2(3) Global Responsibility to Protect 213, doi:10.1163/187598410X500363.
41. Youvan DC, ‘Downing the MQ-9 Reaper: Analyzing Yemen’s Air Defense Tactics and Capabilities in Modern Warfare’ [2024] doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.11144.64005.
42. Zhang B and others, ‘Overview of Propulsion Systems for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’ (2022) 15(2) Energies 455, doi:10.3390/en15020455.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
0
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Оглядова стаття
ЗАКОННІСТЬ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ БЕЗПІЛОТНИКІВ ЗГІДНО З МІЖНАРОДНИМ ГУМАНІТАРНИМ ПРАВОМ: ТЕОРЕТИЧНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ ТА СУДОВА ПРАКТИКА
Дріс Ед.дран*, Фатіма Еззохра Ель-Хаджрауї, Заїд Алі Заїд, Ріад Аль Айлані та Зіа-уд-Дін Малік
АНОТАЦІЯ
Вступ. Сучасна війна все частіше характеризується використанням технологій безпілотників для управління та експлуатації повітряних систем із метою спостереження та ідентифікації цілей. Спочатку безпілотні літальні апарати (БПЛА) в основному використовувалися для спостереження. Однак їхня активна участь у військових операціях викликала серйозні правові питання щодо статусу БПЛА згідно з міжнародним гуманітарним правом (МГП). Розширене використання безпілотників за межами звичайних зон бойових дій виявило критичні питання, пов’язані з державним суверенітетом, принципом розрізнення та принципом пропорційності у збройному конфлікті. Використання безпілотників у зонах конфлікту стало розповсюдженим, зокрема на Близькому Сході, у Сполучених Штатах та Ізраїлі, тож виникло занепокоєння щодо безпеки цивільного населення та військової відповідальності.
Методи. У цьому дослідженні використовується підхід, заснований на огляді літератури, та проведено доктринальне юридичне дослідження, спираючись головним чином на першоджерела, такі як Статут Організації Об’єднаних Націй, і вторинні джерела, включно з прецедентним правом, такими як Справа про канал Корфу та Нікарагуа проти Сполучених Штатів. Академічні статті, наукові дослідження та звіти правозахисних організацій були проаналізовані для оцінки застосування міжнародного гуманітарного права в контексті використання безпілотників під час бойових дій. Для оцінки практичного впровадження принципів розрізнення, пропорційності та необхідності були розглянуті тематичні дослідження з Пакистану, Гази та Ємену. Ці приклади були використані, щоб оцінити правові стандарти і дотримання державою вимог щодо мінімізації жертв серед цивільного населення.
Результати та висновки. Аналіз показує, що хоча безпілотники забезпечують стратегічні переваги, їх використання часто порушує фундаментальні принципи МГП. Удари безпілотників у Ємені та Газі продемонстрували випадки, коли втрат серед цивільного населення не вдалося уникнути, що викликає серйозні занепокоєння щодо дотримання принципів пропорційності та розрізнення. У дослідженні також підкреслено, що держави, які застосовують удари безпілотників, зокрема США та Ізраїль, несуть відповідальність за загибель цивільних, незважаючи на відсутність надійної правової бази для вирішення таких проблем. Щоб подолати ці виклики, існує нагальна потреба в міжнародних законах, які посилюють нагляд і забезпечують дотримання МГП, зокрема щодо захисту цивільних осіб під час збройного конфлікту. Отже, зростає вимога до посилення міжнародного регулювання, щоб гарантувати, що застосування сили узгоджується із захистом цивільного населення.
Ключові слова: безпілотники, суверенітет, розрізнення, пропорційність, військові, самооборона, цивільне населення.
Keywords
- drones, sovereignty, distinction, proportionality, military, self-defense, civilians
Publication history
-
Date of submission: 06 Dec 2024Date of acceptance: 12 Feb 2025
Online First publication: 21 Apr 2025
Last Publication: 17 Aug 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 1 round, revised version submitted 07 Feb 2025
Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
How to cite it?
-
Ed.daran D, El Hajraoui FE, Zaid ZA, Al Ajlani R and Malik Z, ‘The Legality of Drone Use
Under International Humanitarian Law: Theoretical Perspectives and Case Law Insights’ (2025) 8(3) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 478-500 <https://doi.org/10.33327/ AJEE-18-8.3-r000101>Managing Editor – Mag. Yuliia Hartman. English Editor – Julie Bold.
Ukrainian Language Editor – Mag. Liliia Hartman.
