Drone strikes are a crucial weapon in the fight against terrorists and other militant groups, but they also raise profound ethical questions. The drones’ ability to silently observe a target for hours and then take action when the opportunity presents itself—all without putting pilots at risk—has been incredibly useful, allowing the US to decimate al-Qaeda leadership and disrupt the activities of many other militant organizations.
Yet critics point to the high civilian casualty rates, the risk that targets will escape detection and be killed in future attacks, and the loss of public support for the policy. Yet others argue that the benefits of drone strikes outweigh these costs, and that countries should be able to use them as part of their strategy to meet broader military and political goals.
To understand how the different ways in which a country conducts drone strikes shapes its public perception of their moral legitimacy, we conducted an original survey experiment. We found that, in fact, the type of constraint a country uses—whether unilaterally or multilaterally—also makes a difference. When a country combines strategic use of drones with the appearance of greater external control over its strikes, the public perceives those strikes as more legitimate. These findings are consistent with the just war tradition rooted in the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. We discuss the implications of our work for the future of lethal counterterrorism operations.
About the Author
