The United States’ use of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004 has raised significant legal and ethical concerns under international humanitarian law. This article examines the legality of these strikes through the framework of the just war doctrine, focusing on jus ad bellum (the right to wage war) and jus in bello (conduct during war). It argues that U.S. drone strikes violate principles of self-defence, necessity, and proportionality, as Pakistan has not engaged in an armed attack against the U.S., and the strikes disproportionately harm civilians. The analysis highlights the high civilian casualty rates, psychological trauma, and local radicalization resulting from these operations, which undermine their purported military objectives. Furthermore, the article critiques the ethical implications of drone warfare, including its dehumanizing effects and the asymmetry of risk between operators and victims. By questioning the applicability of traditional just war principles to modern asymmetric conflicts, the study calls for re-evaluating international legal standards to address the evolving nature of warfare and prevent the circumvention of humanitarian protections.
Pauliina Anttila (Tue,) studied this question.