THE proliferation of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has significantly transformed modern warfare, introducing strategic advantages alongside contentious legal and ethical issues.
International legal frameworks clearly outline conditions under which drones may lawfully be employed, yet recent conflicts reveal substantial violations, raising critical questions about legality and accountability.
The UN Charter, Article 2(4), explicitly prohibits states from using force against the territorial integrity of another state, as in the case of armed drone strikes in foreign territories without consent, which is a violation of sovereignty.
At the same time, Article 51 allows using force strictly in self-defence following an armed attack.
Any drone strikes claimed under self-defence must strictly ad-here to necessity and proportionality criteria.
Under IHL, particularly the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols, specifically Protocol I (1977), states must distinguish between civilians and combatants, refrain from indiscriminate attacks and maintain proportionality regarding military objectives and potential civilian harm by exercising distinction.
The Chicago Convention (1944) regulates civilian airspace and requires state approval for foreign UAV operations.
The use of drones must also be subject to the convention’s protocols.
Furthermore, IHRL, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6, imposes stringent limits on the use of lethal force, emphasizing accountability and legality, notably in targeted killings.
Despite clear legal guidelines, several recent conflicts have seen controversial drone operations violating international conventions.
Notably, US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia (2004–2020) have faced widespread criticism for infringing on sovereignty under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Reports from organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch detailed numerous civilian casualties, accusing these drone operations of violating principles of proportionality and distinction mandated by IHL.
In Yemen, mainly, US drone strikes reportedly caused significant civilian casualties, notably the strike in Al-Majalah in 2009, which killed numerous civilians, including women and children, highlighting violations of IHL principles.
Similarly, the 2021 Kabul drone strike by the US, intended to target ISIS-K militants but resulting in the deaths of ten civilians, severely violated IHL principles of distinction and proportionality, prompting international condemnation.
Israel has used drones in recent conflict (2023 – 2025) multiple times, which resulted in civilian casualties.
Lavender System, which is an AI-guided drone system, was used for mass drone strikes on residential areas, which is a violation of the precautionary principle (Article 57, Geneva Convention).
As per WHO documented cases till 2024, 22 hospitals were hit by Israeli drones disabling the health-care system, in violation of Geneva Convention IV (Article 18) protecting medical units.
Iran supplied Shahed 136 drones to Russia during the Ukraine war, violating UN Resolution 2231, which resulted in EU and US sanctions on Iranian drone manufacturers.
Houthis used Qasef drones to attack Saudi oil facilities, which resulted in US sanctions on Iranian officials for supplying drones.
Moreover, Russia’s drone use during the Ukraine conflict (2022- present) has also faced severe criticism for apparent indiscriminate attacks against civilian infrastructure, violating Protocol I (1977) of the Geneva Conventions.
Such attacks have led international bodies to investigate potential war crimes.
Drone warfare introduces significant accountability and transparency issues.
Violations of sovereignty, mainly through unauthorized drone strikes, clearly breach Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Additionally, high civilian casualty rates in drone operations contravene the fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality outlined in IHL.
Extrajudicial killings via drone strikes, without adequate legal justification under Article 6 of the ICCPR, exacerbate human rights violations, drawing consistent criticism from international human rights bodies and activists.
For Pakistan to lawfully integrate drone operations, adherence to international conventions is para-mount.
Firstly, drone use must strictly align with the self-defence principle of Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Demonstrating explicit, imminent threats necessitating drone strikes is vital to justify defensive actions.
Operationally, Pakistan must adhere to IHL principles, precisely distinction, proportionality and precautionary measures.
It must establish transparent rules of engagement (ROE) based firmly on international legal standards.
Accountability mechanisms, including transparent post-operation assessments and investigations of civilian harm, must accompany all drone activities.
Transparency in drone usage is crucial for legal and diplomatic legitimacy.
Pakistan should proactively report drone operations, clearly articulating compliance with IHL and IHRL principles.
Openly communicating criteria for necessity and proportionality will mitigate potential legal and ethical challenges.
This indeed has to cater to national security and such data that can jeopardize national security should be classified in a way that aligns with international norms.
UN Charter (Article 2(7)) allows states to protect sovereignty.
Moreover, active engagement with international legal institutions, such as the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council, will position Pakistan positively as a responsible actor in drone warfare, helping to establish credibility, legitimacy and compliance with international legal frameworks.
Pakistan must Geofence critical sites and declare them no-fly zones, which should include nuclear facilities, military bases, parliament and sensitive border locations.
Pakistan must develop an AI-aided jamming capability and deploy it at sensitive sites in line with the UK´s AUDS (Anti-UAV De-fence System).
Pakistan must also incentivize R&D by local firms to reduce imports.
For Pakistan, strict compliance with international legal frameworks, including the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions and ICCPR, provides a clear pathway for employing drones responsibly.
Ensuring transparency, establishing rigorous accountability mechanisms and actively engaging with international institutions can help Pakistan navigate complex legal terrain, reinforcing its global standing and operational legitimacy.
—The writer is a International Law expert with a rich experience in negotiation, mediation and Alternate Dispute Resolution. (shozab2727@gmail.com)
