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