Drone strikes have become a cornerstone of US counterterrorism strategy, allowing for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists outside declared battlefields. They raise complex ethical and legal questions, including whether they comply with international law (the laws of war). They can cause civilian casualties, leading to resentment among local communities who view the strikes as violations of sovereignty and undermining efforts for peace and stability.
The practice has spread globally, with some countries now conducting their own drone operations. The UK’s first drone strike of a citizen outside of war zones was highly controversial. A parliamentary inquiry was denied access to key documents and witnesses.
A drone is a remotely operated Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (UAV) capable of carrying weapons, sensors and cameras. They can be used for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance, close air support, or to deliver guided missiles, munitions or manned-unmanned teaming for strike missions. They can be purpose-built ‘hunter-killer’ UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper, or weaponized commercial UAVs such as the Predator and Reaper X.
Our research found that Americans and French citizens differ in their perceptions of the legitimacy of drone warfare. Americans think strikes are most legitimate when they are used strategically with multilateral constraint, irrespective of whether a civilian is killed. This reflects an understanding of the importance of multilateralism in the context of drone warfare. Our findings also suggest that the global governance challenge for drone warfare does not just pertain to American or French counterterrorism operations. It may also relate to countries’ use of drones during intrastate conflict and border disputes.