The Morality of Drone Warfare and the Politics of Regulation

Table of Contents

1. Frontmatter

2. Chapter 1. Introduction

   Marcus Schulzke

   Abstract

   The world is in the midst of a revolutionary shift in warfare that has profound implications for the future of international security as drones give armed forces unprecedented capacities for managing the risks associated with war. The introduction sets out the book’s goal of clarifying the controversy over drones and presents three central arguments that structure the book. First, drones are not inherently moral or immoral but rather enable ranges of moral or immoral conduct. Second, most existing drones, as well as many drones that are in development, are morally defensible. Third, because the morality of drone warfare depends heavily on how drones are used and how specific variants are designed, resolving the controversy surrounding drones depends on developing effective regulations.

3. Chapter 2. The Drone Revolution

   Marcus Schulzke

   Abstract

   This chapter starts by providing background information about existing drones and generating a rough typology of the many kinds of drones that may exist in the future. It then explains that drones are not morally neutral. They create certain opportunities for action and inhibit others, thereby directing users’ actions in morally significant ways. Moral evaluation of drones should be concerned with judging the range of actions they enable their users to perform. Drones can be misused, and sometimes are. However, as a class of machines, drones increase the prospects of waging wars in morally justifiable ways without significantly increasing the likelihood of misconduct.

4. Chapter 3. The Moral Landscape of Drone Warfare

   Marcus Schulzke

   Abstract

   This chapter discusses some of the most common criticisms of drones: that they are responsible for targeted killings, dangerously unreliable, facilitate worrisome civil–military technology sharing, mediate war in dangerous ways, and cause arms races. These objections raise some plausible concerns, but take them too far. Although drones can be misused in the same ways as other types of weapons (e.g., to carry out intentional attacks on civilians), they nevertheless enable their users to wage wars with greater moral sensitivity by increasing the scope of moral conduct and providing mechanisms for restricting or punishing immoral actions. It is vital to identify morally problematic ways of using drones, which may be subject to regulation, while still recognizing that drones can increase compliance with moral norms.

5. Chapter 4. Evaluating Drones with Jus ad bellum

   Marcus Schulzke

   Abstract

   This chapter considers the moral arguments for and against drones that fall under the scope of jus ad bellum, which is the domain of just war theory that determines when it is permissible to wage a war. Drones introduce substantial benefits when it comes to satisfying the principles of proportionality and last resort. Their implications for the other jus ad bellum principles depend so heavily on the conditions of particular conflicts that it is impossible to say that drones will consistently increase or decrease compliance with ethical norms. However, drones do not create any serious new problems that would provide grounds for prohibiting them. Any risks they raise can be countered with new regulations.

6. Chapter 5. Drones and the Principles of Jus in Bello

   Marcus Schulzke

   Abstract

   This chapter discusses three moral advantages of drones when they are evaluated using the jus in bello principles of discrimination and proportionality. First, because drones obviate the need to act in self-defense, they may be subjected to strict Rules of Engagement (ROE). Second, drones lower the costs of acting with restraint. Although unmanned vehicles are at a heightened risk of being damaged or destroyed if they are subjected to stricter ROE, their destruction does not carry the same risk of provoking casualty aversion as the loss of human soldiers. Third, drones make it easier to visually identify prospective targets before attacking them. This may help to prevent attacks on civilians or allied soldiers.

7. Chapter 6. Evaluating Autonomous Drones

   Marcus Schulzke

   Abstract

   This chapter discusses autonomous drones that could select and attack targets without any direct input from human controllers and advocates taking a pragmatic attitude toward them. These machines could take many different forms and are largely speculative at present. Uncertainty about the future makes it vital to judge these drones on a case-by-case basis, carefully scrutinizing the characteristics of new machines as they reach higher degrees of autonomy. If autonomous drones have the technical characteristics necessary to improve compliance with just war norms, then it may be worth deploying them on a limited basis and evaluating their effectiveness. On the other hand, autonomous drone variants that have inadequate safety protocols or lack the characteristics necessary for compliance with just war precepts should be prohibited.

8. Chapter 7. The Politics of Drone Warfare: Enacting Restrictions Based on Jus ad Bellum

   Marcus Schulzke

   Abstract

   This chapter considers the political changes that may help to promote compliance with the principles of jus ad bellum. These recommendations are designed to take advantage of drones’ strengths when it comes to restricting the size and scope of wars while also avoiding some of the risks associated with drone warfare. It argues that the central goal should be increasing government transparency about drone operations so that citizens can make more informed decisions about whether they should authorize the use of drones in particular instances. This demands greater clarity about the normative and legal contexts in which drones are used, a clearer distinction between law enforcement and military operations, the separation of military and law enforcement functions, and more honest reporting on casualties.

9. Chapter 8. Promoting Justifiable Drone Attacks in Bello

   Marcus Schulzke

   Abstract

   This chapter proposes changes in drone operations that would promote adherence to jus in bello. Institutional changes are essential for ensuring that militaries using drones are able to adapt ethical education systems and enculturation processes that have developed in association with more traditional military roles. In particular, armed forces should move away from virtue-based conceptions of military ethics and toward rule-based ethical systems. Targeting procedures must be strengthened accordingly and made more absolute to reflect the greater security drones provide their operators. Oversight can be improved by clarifying existing chains of command and developing protocols for the independent review of the video footage drones produce.

10. Chapter 9. Conclusion

    Marcus Schulzke

    Abstract

    Chamayou asks, ‘[h]ow can one claim that war machines with no human being aboard are a “more humane” means of destroying life? How can one describe as “humanitarian” procedures designed to annihilate human life?’¹ The key to answering these questions lies in the qualifier ‘more.’ Military drones are weapons platforms; they are machines that are used to kill. This obvious fact cannot be forgotten, lest we underestimate the harms inflicted by even the most limited and restrained conflicts. We should avoid idealizing drones and other instruments of violence. We should refuse to believe that any means of killing can be employed without some costs. To this extent, Chamayou and other critics of drones are correct. Nevertheless, if wars must be waged, then it is better to fight with weapons that can reduce their destructiveness to the greatest extent possible. It is especially important to minimize the harm inflicted on the innocent bystanders, who do not consent to participate in hostilities, and on the material infrastructure that is vital for their survival.

11. Backmatter