Analyzing the U.S. Drone Program’s Deployment of Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for Targeted Killings Outside of National Boundaries

Following the 9/11 attacks, U.S. counterterrorism efforts have gradually shifted focus from Afghanistan to regions like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The deployment of armed drones in these areas to target al-Qaeda members and their affiliates has sparked a contentious international law debate. While the U.S. drone policy claims adherence to international targeting rules, the reality of operations in remote locations has led to numerous civilian casualties. With a rising toll of civilian deaths, challenges in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants, and concerns about accountability in drone operations, it seems that the approach taken by U.S. policymakers may have misconstrued existing laws governing hostilities. The policy lacks clarity on the applicable legal framework and necessary constraints to prevent potential misuse of drone technology, fostering a perception that the U.S. administration consistently employs armed drones without transparency or accountability. Despite extensive literature on the 9/11 attacks and scholarly discussions on U.S. drone use, the alignment between rules governing targeting under international humanitarian law and the practical implementation of drone operations by the U.S. remains an area with limited examination in international law. Consequently, given issues related to civilian casualties, collateral damage, and potential violations of humanitarian law principles, it becomes crucial to evaluate whether U.S. targeting practices violate the law of armed conflict.