Unmanned Aerial Vehicles &

International Law
If, How, When and Where UAV Strikes May
Be Conducted
Prof. Dr. T.D.Gill: University of Amsterdam &
Netherlands Defence Academy

Main Legal Questions

Are UAV strikes a violation of international law
per se?
If permissible in principle, what are the legal
conditions governing the permissibility of such
strikes?
Which legal regimes govern the modalities of
such strikes and which conditions do they pose?
Is there a need for new law to regulate the use
of UAVs for the purpose of conducting strikes?

UAVs and State Sovereignty

Requirement of special authorization
(consent) or of a recognized legal basis for
conducting UAV operations over another
States territory.
UAVs as State Aircraft under Chicago
Convention on Civil Aviation (Articles 3 & 8).
Requirements for valid consent under IL.

Legal Bases in the Absence of Consent

UN Security Council resolutions under Chapter
VII UN Charter as a potential legal basis.
Self- defence as a potential legal basis.
Criteria under the UN Charter and under
customary international law for the lawful
exercise of self-defence.
Modalities of the exercise of self-defence.

UAV Strikes and IHL (I) Applicability

and General Issues
Threshold of armed conflict & of the applicability
of IHL (IAC & NIAC).
Geographical limitations on the exercise of
belligerent rights (IAC & NIAC).
UAVs and their compatibility with restrictions
upon means and methods of combat.
UAVs within the framework of the paradigm of
hostilities(application of means & methods of
warfare against military objectives and
combatant personnel of the adversary party).

UAV Strikes and IHL (II) Targeting

UAV strikes as attacks & the principle of
distinction in conducting attacks under IHL
Prohibition of attacks against civilians and
civilian objects as such.
Persons and objects subject to attack.
UAV strikes, precautionary measures and the
principle of proportionality in bello.
Targeting of specific individuals under IHL
(targeted killing under IHL).

UAV Strikes and International Human

Rights Law
Applicability of IHRL to UAV strikes within the
context of an armed conflict.
Requirement of jurisdiction/effective control over
territory or individuals.
Relationship of IHL & IHRL: complementarity and
the applicability of the lex specialis principle.
Targeting of specific individuals outside the
conduct of hostilities ( targeted killing under
IHRL).

Conclusions (I)
The operation of a UAV over another States
territory requires either valid consent or a
lawful exercise of rights under a recognized
legal basis.
The use UAVs for conducting armed strikes is
subject to the law governing the use of force
under the UN Charter & customary
international law.

Conclusions (II)
To the extent a use of force constitutes the
existence of an armed conflict, the use of UAVs to
conduct strikes is subject to the IHL rules and
principles governing the conduct of hostilities.
This applies equally to the deliberate targeting of
a specific individual subject to attack under IHL.
Any use of UAVs is likewise subject to the
limitations relating to the conduct of operations
on or over the territory of States not party to the
conflict.

Conclusions (III)
Outside the conduct of hostilities within the
context of an armed conflict, the use of UAVs to
conduct either signature strikes, or carry out the
targeted killing of a specific individual is subject
to the regime of IHRL.
This regime only permits a targeted killing under
very exceptional circumstances and subject to
stringent conditions.
The use of UAVs to conduct armed strikes would
hardly, if ever, be compatible with this regime.

Conclusions (IV)
The present controversies relating to the use of UAVs
revolve mainly around three questions from a legal
perspective: (1) Do the strikes (always) have an
adequate legal basis? (2) Is IHL actually the applicable
regime in relation to all of them? (3) Are drones
capable of meeting the standards laid down in the law?
The answers depend,as always, partly upon the
relevant circumstances and factual context. However,
there is nothing inherently different between a strike
carried out by a UAV and a conventional military
aircraft from a legal perspective.

Conclusions (V)
In a nutshell the answer is: If a strike carried
out by an F16 would be legal, it would be
equally legal if conducted by a UAV.
If, on the other hand, a strike carried out by an
F16 would be illegal, it would be equally illegal
if it were conducted by a UAV.
In short, the law is precisely the same,
irrespective of which platform is used, and no
new law is required for drones.