A drone strike is an attack launched by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) carrying guided bombs, missiles or other weapons. The United States uses armed drones as part of conventional fighting in war zones and to conduct targeted killings outside declared battlefields—a practice known as “extrajudicial executions.” The CIA’s lethal operations are largely secret, and the Trump administration has expanded their use.
The global rise of drone warfare poses a challenge to international law, which sets strict rules on the use of force and on the principles and customs of war. The US has a unique capacity to launch airstrikes on demand, which makes its drone warfare more difficult to govern. In addition, the use of drones has accelerated globalization and destabilized local governance in many ways.
Our research demonstrates that variation in how and why a country uses drones shapes perceptions of legitimacy. Americans and French citizens see different patterns of drone strikes as more or less legitimate, with the level of civilian casualties a key factor. We also show that the US should take additional steps to prevent civilian deaths in its drone attacks to improve public perceptions of legitimacy and reduce risks to the military mission.
The recent uptick in drone strikes in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province—including a strike on a volleyball game, causing the death of a child—shows a reckless disregard for the lives of civilians. The strike is one of many that has increased in frequency since March of this year, leading some analysts to argue that it may contribute to a resurgence in terrorist activity in the region.