Air Drones in Asymmetrical Conflicts

Today’s armed conflicts are becoming increasingly asymmetric in character, which is clearly demonstrated by the conflicts in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) are acknowledged as one of the most commonly used and highly technological means of conducting warfare in such type of conflicts. At the same time, their usage fuels discussion on the effectiveness and necessity of this technology employed by the United States and members of the international anti-terrorist coalition. Today the U.S. retains global leadership both in the production of drones and their military applications. However, there are no optimal methods for collecting and verifying information about UAV air strikes that would provide data for their combat effectiveness assessment. In the view of application of this technology for targeted killing of terrorists, questions of ethics and international humanitarian law are also on the agenda. Experts express opinions that the widespread usage of drones only aggravates the asymmetric character of modern conflicts and does not prevent them. Previously drones were used for surveillance and obtaining intelligence, but now are more and more often employed for combat missions as semi-autonomous weapons. Hence, in the first part of the article the authors suggest a possible methodology to define the combat effectiveness of UAV strikes and in the second part - analyze legal and ethical questions connected with the use of this type of weapon. They identify that the attitude towards the UAVs in the places of their deployment and operation becomes increasingly hostile. Meanwhile, some of the U.S. allies have become critical of their operations. The American public have a positive take on UAVs and appreciate their contribution to the decrease of the nation’s military losses. Henceforth, U.S. experts are attempting to establish a legal justification for the drones due to their political utility.

1. Arkin R. C. (2010). The Case for Ethical Autonomy in Unmanned Systems. Journal of Military Ethics. Vol. 9, Issue 4. URL: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/ai/robot-lab/online publications/Arkin_ethical_autonomous_ systems_final.pdf (accessed 20.04.2015)

2. Boed R. (2000). State of Necessity as a Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct. Yale Humanitarian Rights and Development Journal. Vol. 3. Issue. 1. URL: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=yhrdlj (accessed 20.04.2015)

3. Byzhinsky E. (2014). Prioritety razvitiya bespilotnikov: ot voennogo dela k ekonomike [Priorities of the UAV development: from military affair to economy]. Index bezopasnosti. Vol. 19. № 3(106). P. 123-132.

4. Davies N.J.S. (2009). The Caroline Case and American Drone Strikes in Pakistan. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. Oct/Dec. Vol. 21. Issue 4. P. 429-436.

5. Deriglazova L. (2005). Paradoks assimetrii v mezhdunarodnom konflikte [Paradox of asymmetry in international conflict]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 3. № 2(8). May/August.

6. Dopplick R. (2010). ASIL Keynote Highlight: US Legal Advisor Harold Koh Asserts Drones Warfare is Lawful Self-Defense Under International Law. Inside Justice. March. URL: http://www.insidejustice.com/ intl/2010/03/27/asil_koh_drone_war_law/ (accessed 20.04.2015)

7. Dworkin A. (2013). Drones and Targeted Killing: Defining a European Position. European Council on Foreign Relations. July. URL: http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR84_DRONES_BRIEF.pdf (accessed 20.04.2015) Galliott J. (2015). Military Robots: Mapping the Moral Landscape. Ashgate Publishing Limited. 265 p.

8. Galliott J. (2012). Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles and the Asymmetry Objection: a Response to Strawser. Journal of Military Ethics. January. Vol. 11. Issue 1. P. 58-66.

9. Kels Ch. J. (2012). Closing Argument: At The Outer Bounds Of Asymmetry. Journal of Military Ethics. Vol. 11. Issue. 3. P. 223-244.

10. Masters J. (2013). Targeted Killings. Council on Foreign Relations. May. URL: http://www.cfr.org/ counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627 (accessed 20.04.2015)

11. Mendkovich N. (2011). Amerikanskie bespilotniki v pakistanskom prigranichie [American UAVs in Pakistan border-zone]. Russian Council for International Relations. URL: http://russiancouncil.ru/inner/ ?id_4=136#top

12. O’Connell M.E. (2011). Remarks: The Resort to Drones under International Law. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy. September.

13. Podberezkin A.I., Borishpolets K.P. (eds) (2014). Nekotorye aspekty analiza voenno-politicheskoj obstanovki [Some Aspects of Analysis of Military and Political Circumstances]. Moscow.: MGIMO-University.

14. Pryer A. (2013). The Rise of Machines. Military Review. Mar/Apr. Vol. 93. Issue 2. P. 14-24.

15. Roberts T. (2012). The 'Irresistible Attractions' of Drones. National Catholic Reporter. September. Vol. 49. Issue 2. P. 14-24.

16. Shakleina T.A. (ed.) (2014). Situatsionnye analizy. Vyp. 4: Amerika v fokuse rossijskih issledovatelej: istorija i sovremennost' [Situational Analysis. Issue 4. America in the Focus of Russian Scholars] Moscow: MGIMO-University. 415 p.

17. Strawser B.J. (2010). Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles. Journal of Military Ethics. Vol. 9. Issue 4. P. 342-368.