With rapid technological developments, it has become a challenge for IHL to ensure that countries remain in line with and follow applicable laws. The use of drones during conflict has become a debate that has triggered the need for a review of IHL itself. Drone attacks are usually used in conflict as a method of targeted killings, this is done by utilizing (UAV) or unmanned aerial vehicles to provide maximum and effective attacks. Drone attacks are often used in modern warfare which can be used for countries to carry out attacks from a distance. The use of drones is said to be an effective alternative in dealing with counterterrorism because it can destroy and weaken terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban easily and disrupt their operational activities. This also reduces the need for US military personnel casualties because the use of drones reduces the need for ground operations. The debate in this case is the legality of using drones, and whether they comply with the principles stated in IHL such as the principle of distinction by distinguishing between combatants and civilians and the principle of proportionality which is carried out by avoiding excessive civilian losses compared to military advantages.
The importance of IHL in addressing this issue is that IHL is needed to assess the legality of actions taken during an armed conflict. IHL also serves as a framework that can regulate the conduct of hostilities, which aims to balance military needs with human considerations. IHL itself is designed to protect those who do not participate in hostilities, such as civilians and medical personnel. Attacks on civilians and civilian objects are strictly prohibited by IHL, this is done to ensure that military operations carried out by a state do not result in unnecessary suffering or loss of innocent lives.
One example case that I can give is the use of drone strikes by the US in military operations in Pakistan. These drone strikes were primarily used to target militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), with around 563 strikes reported during President Barack Obama’s period. These drone operations were carried out to target two Taliban leaders Baitullah Mehsud and Hakimullah Mehsud who were eventually killed by drone strikes. However, behind the success there are an estimated 800 civilians killed in these strikes, the report also said that the highest number of casualties occurred in 2010, with around 89 civilians killed during the strike. Of course, the report given is very contrary to IHL which mandates that all parties involved in a conflict must always distinguish between combatants and civilians, this then sparked debate and questions about the legality of drones especially those that occur outside of active war zones.
The debate surrounding drone strikes is about the ethical and legal usage during conflicting times. The legal frameworks governing drone strikes sometimes are ambiguous, leading to disagreement about whether these actions fall into IHL or Human Rights Law because these legal frameworks can be applied depending on the context of the actions taken during peacetime or an active conflict. To add more these drone operations are conducted covertly, impacting communities and human rights organizations harder to seek for justice and solutions in the case of mistaken death. Other than that drone strikes also have a psychological impact on civilians who are living under these constant attacks, communities experience fear and trauma due to the unpredictability of drone warfare, some also argue that these drone strikes lead to significant counterproductive which increases radicalization and recruitment to the local communities who viewed them as a violation of human rights and sovereignty.
There are several solutions that can be attempted to address this problem, such as forming a clear legal framework, this can be assisted by academics and legal experts who can recommend a separate legal framework that can regulate drones in armed conflict, of course, this framework must be able to explain the applications of IHL principles and prepare preventive measures that are specifically adjusted to drone operations. This new technology also requires updated regulations because existing laws may not be able to handle the challenges. To strengthen the legal framework that has been built, what can be done is to encourage independent investigations into drone operations that result in civilian casualties. The UN needs to pressure countries that use drones to have a strong mechanism so that investigations into alleged IHL violations can be carried out. By using independent oversight, this can help ensure accountability and ensure that victims can receive compensation.
Another way that can be done is also by improving the targeting process which complies with the principles of IHL by ensuring that the target given has certain criteria and through a strict process. Another thing that needs to be ensured is that there needs to be clear evidence that the target has combatant status so that this can reduce the risk of civilian casualties. A signature attack also needs to be carried out which will ensure the target is based on a pattern of behavior and not a confirmed identity and is continuously evaluated to remain in line with the principle of IHL distinction. To further ensure drones or UAVs can be given a better surveillance capability to collect data, this is done to avoid inaccuracies in data collection so that it can make it easier for operators to make more appropriate decisions. Operators must also be equipped with training on IHL principles so that they can understand the implications of the decisions they make under International law
The legitimacy of drone strikes under IHL is still a matter of debate, requiring a fine balance between humanitarian duty and military advancement. In order to maintain compliance with international law, and the survival of civilians, the legal framework used to control the use of the technology must also continue to evolve and adapt. There needs to be ongoing discussion to continue to press for appropriate rules, accountability systems, and a dedication to upholding the principles of IHL in future armed conflicts.