The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal and Ethical Analysis

Kreps, Sarah E.; Kaag, John

doi:10.1057/pol.2012.2

Cited by 41 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Neither set of claims has passed unscathed. First, critics argue that drone strikes have violated the IHL principle of distinction (Kreps and Kaag, 2012), which requires, according to Article 48 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention (AP 1, 1977), that 'the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants…and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives'. 4 Critics suggest that the government's target list includes people who do not 'take a direct part in hostilities', with particular censure reserved for signature strikes (Stanford-NYU, 2012), statusbased targeting in which the government strikes individuals based on their demographic characteristics or patterns of behavior -for example, that they are consorting with militants or congregating with an elder in the community -even when their identities are unknown (Ackerman, S., 2013).…”

Section: Debating Drones In Combatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flying under the radar: A study of public attitudes towards unmanned aerial vehicles

Kreps

2014

Research & Politics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, have become a central feature of American foreign policy, with over 400 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen in the last decade. Despite criticisms that have arisen about ethics and legality of this policy, polls have registered high levels of public support for drone strikes. This article shows that the standard formulation of poll questions takes as a given the government's controversial claims about combatant status and source of legal authorization. I conduct a survey experiment that evaluates how varying the terms of the debate -in particular whether the strikes are compatible with international humanitarian law (IHL) and have legal authorization -affects public support for the drone policy. Treatments that incorporated contested assumptions about IHL meaningfully decreased public support while the public was less moved by questions about domestic or international legal authorization.

show abstract

Section: Debating Drones In Combatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flying under the radar: A study of public attitudes towards unmanned aerial vehicles

Kreps

2014

Research & Politics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially for war on terror, civilians are intermingled with combatants, and many civilian facilities can be transformed into military objectives, let alone those dual-use facilities and technologies. Just as Antonio Cassese comment, the definition of the military objectives is "so sweeping that it can cover practically anything" (Sarah and John, 2012).…”

Section: The Identification Of Legal Military Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on War Ethics in the Employment of UAVs

Guo

Yang

2018

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate over the ethical justification of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles has been growing heated for years with the proliferation use of UAVs. At the center of this debate are the underlying question of war ethics and the concerns of whether UAVs will be able to fully comply with war ethics in future. This article is trying to articulate the relevant precepts and points out some misunderstanding clouding UAVs. After focusing the moral debates based on the basic principles of the just war, this article contends that regulations should respond to the character that UAVs is in incremental development to adjust themselves, rather than ban simply.

show abstract

“…Central to the determination of an action's legality is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 6, enshrining the right to life, and article 4 (2) assures its nonderogability (Heys, 2013). According to the International Court of Justice, even if a means of war does not violate international law, it may still breach the dictates of public conscience through what is known as the 'Martens Clause' that recommends states evaluate the moral and ethical repercussions of new technologies (Kreps and Kaag, 2012). The Martens Clause sets a long-standing and influential normative imperative whereupon states' actions should be driven by ethical and moral concerns (ICJ, 1996).…”

Section: Who Would Want To Be Killed By a Robot?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Existing armed unmanned combat aerial vehicles are precursors to lethal autonomous robotics, colloquially known as 'killer robots'. Killer robots are systems that, once programed and activated, can choose targets without further human intervention ('human out of the loop') (Kreps and Kaag, 2012). It appears that militaries have begun to believe that autonomous systems are their best option for the future.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Killer Robots: Why the US should Lead the Ban

Garcia

2015

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Killer robots are systems that can choose targets without further human intervention. The US should take the lead at the United Nations in creating specific new global norms and clarify expectations and universally agreed behavior. The US is the only country in a strong enough position to take the lead to stop a technology that will mean the loss of humanity in decisions of war and peace. The time to act is now before unpredictable proliferation occurs. A preventive ban on offensive killer robots is the vital first step in setting a principled limit to killing‐yielding automation and is a critical tool in the effort to regulate other robotics and nascent technology that could destabilize international peace and security. The potential for fully autonomous weapons systems to be advantageous is unpromising. Fully autonomous weapons systems do not appear to offer military advantages for modern warfare that would be compliant with international law. Four branches of international law require attention here, and examined together, they serve as a foundational bedrock that has historically been used to constrain violence in war: the law of state responsibility, the law on the use of force, international humanitarian law and human rights law.

show abstract

The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal and Ethical Analysis

Cited by 41 publications

References 18 publications

Flying under the radar: A study of public attitudes towards unmanned aerial vehicles

Flying under the radar: A study of public attitudes towards unmanned aerial vehicles

Reflections on War Ethics in the Employment of UAVs

Killer Robots: Why the US should Lead the Ban

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About