The Humanitarian Problem with Drones

F. Mégret
{"title":"The Humanitarian Problem with Drones","authors":"F. Mégret","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2228659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the difficulties with the debate on drones is how it has become a sort of lightning rod for all kinds of anxieties about the use of force in today’s world. Drones are, often problematically, the emblematic weapon for a range of other phenomena and so, unsurprisingly, attract much polemic. The challenge, thus, is to find what is problematic specifically with drones as a technology in armed conflict that could not be dealt with better by invoking a larger genus of problems. In order to do this, I outline a series of ways in which drones have been seen as problematic which I argue are either not specifically humanitarian, or really interested in something else such as what the legal framework applicable to the “war on terror” should be. Separating these very important debates from the humanitarian questions that ought to be asked about drones as such is crucial if one is to make conceptual headway. I then examine the issue of whether there is anything that is specific and/or inherent to drones, and address the question of whether it is that drones cause unwarranted harm to civilians. I seek to explain how, regardless of the answer to that complicated question, drones are much more likely to be perceived as inflicting excessive damage due to their highly discriminatory potential but also, crucially, the way in which they maximize the safety of the drone operator. If anything, it is this aspect that is most specific and novel about drones. I argue that this absolute safety of the operator not only maximizes states’ ability to minimize collateral harm, as has already been observed elsewhere, but also has the potential to fundamentally alter the laws of war’s tolerance for collateral harm, which was always based on the assumption of a tradeoff between harm to the attacker and to “enemy civilians.” It is this tradeoff that is increasingly at risk of being rendered moot. I finish with an attempt to contextualize the drone problem within a larger history of exogenous technological shock to international humanitarian law and how it has addressed them. Overall, the article is interested not just in determining whether drone use may or may not be “legal” but also more broadly how it impacts some of the moral underpinnings of the laws of war.","PeriodicalId":83442,"journal":{"name":"Utah law review","volume":"2013 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utah law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2228659","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

One of the difficulties with the debate on drones is how it has become a sort of lightning rod for all kinds of anxieties about the use of force in today’s world. Drones are, often problematically, the emblematic weapon for a range of other phenomena and so, unsurprisingly, attract much polemic. The challenge, thus, is to find what is problematic specifically with drones as a technology in armed conflict that could not be dealt with better by invoking a larger genus of problems. In order to do this, I outline a series of ways in which drones have been seen as problematic which I argue are either not specifically humanitarian, or really interested in something else such as what the legal framework applicable to the “war on terror” should be. Separating these very important debates from the humanitarian questions that ought to be asked about drones as such is crucial if one is to make conceptual headway. I then examine the issue of whether there is anything that is specific and/or inherent to drones, and address the question of whether it is that drones cause unwarranted harm to civilians. I seek to explain how, regardless of the answer to that complicated question, drones are much more likely to be perceived as inflicting excessive damage due to their highly discriminatory potential but also, crucially, the way in which they maximize the safety of the drone operator. If anything, it is this aspect that is most specific and novel about drones. I argue that this absolute safety of the operator not only maximizes states’ ability to minimize collateral harm, as has already been observed elsewhere, but also has the potential to fundamentally alter the laws of war’s tolerance for collateral harm, which was always based on the assumption of a tradeoff between harm to the attacker and to “enemy civilians.” It is this tradeoff that is increasingly at risk of being rendered moot. I finish with an attempt to contextualize the drone problem within a larger history of exogenous technological shock to international humanitarian law and how it has addressed them. Overall, the article is interested not just in determining whether drone use may or may not be “legal” but also more broadly how it impacts some of the moral underpinnings of the laws of war.
无人机的人道主义问题
关于无人机的辩论的困难之一是,它如何成为当今世界对使用武力的各种焦虑的避雷针。无人机往往是一系列其他现象的标志性武器,因此,不出所料,引起了很多争论。因此,我们面临的挑战是,找出无人机作为一种技术在武装冲突中存在的具体问题,这些问题不能通过引发更大范围的问题来更好地解决。为了做到这一点,我概述了无人机被视为有问题的一系列方式,我认为这些方式要么不是特别人道主义,要么真的对其他事情感兴趣,比如适用于“反恐战争”的法律框架应该是什么。如果要在概念上取得进展,将这些非常重要的辩论与有关无人机的人道主义问题分开是至关重要的。然后,我检查是否有任何特定的和/或固有的无人机的问题,并解决是否无人机造成无根据的伤害平民的问题。我试图解释,不管这个复杂问题的答案是什么,无人机更有可能被视为造成过度损害,因为它们具有高度歧视性的潜力,但更重要的是,它们最大限度地提高了无人机操作员的安全。如果说有什么不同的话,那就是无人机最具体和最新颖的方面。我认为,这种操作人员的绝对安全不仅使国家最大限度地减少附带伤害的能力,正如已经在其他地方观察到的那样,而且有可能从根本上改变战争法对附带伤害的容忍度,这总是基于对攻击者和“敌方平民”伤害之间的权衡假设。正是这种权衡越来越有可能变得毫无意义。最后,我试图将无人机问题置于对国际人道法的外源性技术冲击的更大历史背景中,以及它是如何解决这些问题的。总的来说,这篇文章感兴趣的不仅是确定无人机的使用是否“合法”,而且更广泛地说,它如何影响战争法的一些道德基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信