Drone strikes represent a new form of warfare that has emerged in response to the threat of militant extremists. Using remote piloting technology, drones can track targets from miles away before a strike, allowing operators to ensure that the intended target is killed with minimal collateral damage. This has been hailed as a significant evolution in military tactics, but it also raises serious ethical and legal concerns about the morality of such attacks, particularly when civilians are targeted.
In a rare interview with Pakistani newspaper Dawn, a senior member of the country’s army publicly supported drone strikes. This is a highly unusual statement for such a high-ranking general to make without the approval of his superiors, given the strict hierarchy of Pakistani military commands. The statement is all the more remarkable given that his troops are operating in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, an area that has been the main target for drone strikes.
As this debate continues, it is important to look beyond individual countries’ policies and to consider how the overall use of drone strikes has been shaped by two informal rules: the use rule and the constraint rule. The use rule refers to why a country uses drone strikes and is designed to protect key expectations of wartime conduct such as reciprocal risk. The constraint rule is the set of rules that a country employs to limit the ways in which it uses drones, and is designed to reduce risks of civilian casualties.