Policy Options for Drone Strikes and the Consent of Targeted States in Light of International Humanitarian Law

Abstract

Today, the policies of military drone users such as the United States for carrying out targeted killings stem from both domestic and international sources, which in turn generates numerous legal complexities. Although international humanitarian law has served, to some extent, as a barrier and deterrent against many inhumane and anti-human acts and has been a relatively suitable foundation for human rights, the lack of enforcement guarantees and the interpretation of the governing principles of international law by drone-possessing states have diminished its effectiveness. Justifications such as the use of lawful force, legitimizing measures in warfare, self-defense, and the consent of the host state are among the main rationales provided by states employing lethal drones. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method and through examining the articulation of policy approaches regarding the use of drones for lethal objectives, analyzes three policy approaches: permissive, combined, and deterrent. While these policy approaches take human rights charters and laws of armed conflict into account as guiding principles, their importance lies in illustrating the broad spectrum of available options for drone-possessing states aiming to implement and operationalize targeted killings using drones. Overall, the present study seeks to examine the shortcomings of policy options for drone strikes, considering the laws of war and peace, and the diverse and often conflicting interpretations of such operations in light of both domestic and international law.