Una evaluación normativa del uso de drones en conflictos armados asimétricos

Abstract

A Normative Evaluation of the Use of Drones in Asymmetric Armed Conflicts

Remotely piloted aircrafts (popularly known as drones) have been increasingly resorted to in contemporary armed conflicts, and their influence is only expected to grow in the near future. They have often been described as a “game changer”, and their use has been as often advocated as it has been criticized in the specialized literature. In this paper I argue that they force us to re-examine the normative framework regulating permissible resort to armed force at the bar of justice. I suggest that some of their main features affect not just how we apply the principles of necessity and proportionality as conditions for the permissible resort to armed force, but also force us to refine their conceptual structure. In particular, I argue that the chances of success of any resort to force are internal to its proportionality, and that this finding has momentous implications for the assessment of the permissibility of resorting to force through drones, given their proven lower efficacy vis-à-vis alternative weapons systems. This article closes by rejecting Walzer’s claim that because the harm at issue is ultimately the responsibility of the belligerent using civilians as shields, and not of that using drones, the fact that they may cause a disproportionate amount of collateral harm is irrelevant for the purposes of assessing its permissibility.