The increasing use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has proven to be a catalyst for contentious dialogue (Valavanis et al: 2008; 3) between those whom acknowledge the suggested advantages of deploying UAVs and those who disagree on the basis that there are unjustifiable moral implications, especially in the context of warfare (Boyle. M :2013; 21). I remain impartial with regard to these arguments, however full justification shall be provided in due course as to why. This paper therefore, shall be written from the perspective of my own. To accurately evaluate these contrasting arguments we must first identify the meaning of morality in the context of warfare. Devlin. P (1965) acknowledges that definitively stating the confines of morality remains a hugely subjective issue, and so for simplicity, one broadly suited definition shall be accepted throughout the scope of this work. I believe Meisels. T's (2012: 932) notion whereby the laws of warfare, such as those presented in the Geneva conventions and the theory of 'just war'; which establishes humane 'rules' of conducting warfare, are inextricably linked with the notion of preserving morality during war. This perception on morality will therefore provide the parameters for the entirety of this essay to be argued from, and so whether warfare is 'moral' or not shall be decided by the extent to which war conforms with both the Geneva conventions and more importantly the theory of just war.
Table of Contents
Key issues regarding the co-existence of morality and UAVs
Harm
Agency
Regulation
Desirable outcomes
Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper critically analyzes the moral implications surrounding the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in modern combat, specifically investigating the tensions between technological warfare and ethical standards like 'just war' theory.
- The moral status of UAVs within the context of 'just war' and 'jus in bello' principles.
- The multifaceted nature of 'harm' caused by drone warfare, including civilian casualties and psychological impacts on operators.
- The challenge of 'agency' and culpability in drone operations, particularly involving complex organizational structures like the CIA.
- The efficacy and limitations of current international and domestic regulations regarding drone usage.
- Strategic recommendations to align UAV deployment with moral and ethical accountability.
Excerpt from the Book
Key issues regarding the co-existence of morality and UAVs
According to Quintana. E (2008: 4-5), the development and use of UAVs is an increasingly attractive prospect for politicians and military commanders, as they offer a high degree of control over the battlefield without placing any members of their own ranks in any danger, and at just a fraction of the price. The very notion of cheap warfare however, may actually promote violence since UAVs provide a practically disposable method of attack (Boyle. M: 2013; 11-19), therefore, the nature of this conflict is deemed by many as a controversial and unfair method of attack- since wars should not be waged on the basis that it is 'easy' to do so (Meisels. T: 2012). Boyle. M (2013: 21) further suggests that deploying UAVs against an enemy without equal firepower, is deemed as immoral and disproportionate warfare, since one side may suffer from great aerial disadvantages whilst the other boasts advantages such as the ability to perform reconnaissance missions and acquire air-superiority, all relatively cheaply. This is a somewhat legitimate claim according to McMahan. J (2005: 5-12), as this context of warfare undermines the guidelines of conflict in the principles established by jus in bello which states a war must above all, have distinction, military necessity, no means of evil conduct, fair treatment of prisoners and finally proportionality, in order to preserve morality (Finlay. C: 2013;156-158).
Summary of Chapters
Key issues regarding the co-existence of morality and UAVs: This chapter introduces the core debate regarding the fairness and morality of drone usage, contrasting operational advantages with the principles of 'jus in bello'.
Harm: This section explores the physical, psychological, and social consequences of UAV deployment, emphasizing the difficulty of distinguishing between combatants and civilians.
Agency: This chapter investigates the issue of culpability in drone strikes, highlighting how organizational structures and 'corporate' decision-making make it difficult to hold individuals accountable.
Regulation: This part examines the current legal frameworks governing drones and the potential for future amendments as technology evolves.
Desirable outcomes: This chapter provides personal recommendations for minimizing harm and ensuring that military actions adhere to ethical standards.
Conclusion: This final section summarizes the paper's arguments, asserting that UAVs are not inherently immoral, but that they present strategic shortfalls in counterinsurgency contexts.
Keywords
UAVs, drones, morality, jus in bello, just war, combat, harm, agency, culpability, regulation, counterinsurgency, warfare, ethics, military necessity, surveillance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this academic work?
The work focuses on the moral implications and controversies surrounding the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in combat, evaluating them through the lens of established ethical frameworks.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The core themes are harm, agency (responsibility), and regulation, which are discussed in the context of both conventional and unconventional warfare.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to identify key arguments regarding the moral ramifications of operating UAVs and to formulate recommendations that help drone operations conform to globally accepted standards of 'morally right' conduct.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs a critical analysis of existing literature, including 'just war' theory and principles of international humanitarian law, to examine contemporary conflicts and military policies.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body addresses the 'jus in bello' criteria, the challenges of attribution and culpability (especially within the CIA), the psychological effects on drone operators, and the necessity of strict regulatory improvements.
Which keywords best characterize this publication?
The paper is characterized by terms such as UAVs, drones, morality, just war, culpability, proportionality, and military necessity.
How does the paper differentiate between conventional war and the 'war on terror' regarding UAV use?
The paper suggests that conventional regulations are more difficult to apply in the 'war on terror' because the enemy is often indistinguishable from the civilian population, which undermines standard moral principles of combat.
What is the concept of 'organisational deviance' in this context?
It refers to a situation where decision-making is so widely distributed across complex organizational hierarchies that it becomes nearly impossible to assign responsibility for specific crimes or harms to any single individual.
Why does the author argue against the 'warrior ethos' for UAV pilots?
The author argues that the 'warrior ethos' promotes a 'shoot first' mentality that is incompatible with the nuances required in modern, predominantly urban conflict zones, leading to unnecessary collateral damage.
- Arbeit zitieren
- William Kealey (Autor:in), 2012, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in combat, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/267118
