The Ethics surrounding drone warfare has been a controversial debate that has not yet captured the full attention of the public in the west. The main arguments for using drone warfare has been about saving lives and cost, but such argument pales in comparison to the arguments against it. To examine the counter arguments of why drone warfare is ethically wrong, we must look at the political stance of the governments using drone warfare, the society’s responsibility, the ethics of the way that the drone strikes are conducted, the effectiveness of drone warfare and the international irresponsibility and unethical nature of drone strikes.
Drone warfare saves the lives of soldiers by placing them out of harms way; this is one of the arguments for …show more content…
The US is conducting secondary strikes after the initial strike to kill other possible target, this has discouraged help of innocent victims, and even inhibited emergency services and humanitarian workers from providing medical care and relief, this can be considered as war crimes [6][9][15], a view voice by UN’s Christof Heyns [8]. Laws are the underpinning of duty-based ethics, as it is set up as a general rule for everyone to uphold, since the US is an UN member therefore it acknowledges this general rule and to break it is unquestionably unethical. Ben Emmerson QC from the UN states that in each case of civilian casualties, there needs to be a full explanation made to the public, this obligation ought to be viewed as an inherent part of the State’s legal obligations of accountability under international humanitarian law and international human rights law [8]. In the case of US very little explanation is given for each civilian casualty, this demonstrates disregard of two other international law by the US when is comes to drones strikes, again this shows unethical from duty based point. The precedent the US is setting is not just duty-based unethical, from a consequentialist point, the lost of respect for international law can lead to a other nations not obligating international standards of rules of engagement, thus human atrocity can be committed. "If other states were to claim the broad-based authority that the United States does—to kill people anywhere, anytime—the result would be chaos." —Philip Alston, former UN special rapporteur
Drone warfare saves the lives of soldiers by placing them out of harms way; this is one of the arguments for …show more content…
The US is conducting secondary strikes after the initial strike to kill other possible target, this has discouraged help of innocent victims, and even inhibited emergency services and humanitarian workers from providing medical care and relief, this can be considered as war crimes [6][9][15], a view voice by UN’s Christof Heyns [8]. Laws are the underpinning of duty-based ethics, as it is set up as a general rule for everyone to uphold, since the US is an UN member therefore it acknowledges this general rule and to break it is unquestionably unethical. Ben Emmerson QC from the UN states that in each case of civilian casualties, there needs to be a full explanation made to the public, this obligation ought to be viewed as an inherent part of the State’s legal obligations of accountability under international humanitarian law and international human rights law [8]. In the case of US very little explanation is given for each civilian casualty, this demonstrates disregard of two other international law by the US when is comes to drones strikes, again this shows unethical from duty based point. The precedent the US is setting is not just duty-based unethical, from a consequentialist point, the lost of respect for international law can lead to a other nations not obligating international standards of rules of engagement, thus human atrocity can be committed. "If other states were to claim the broad-based authority that the United States does—to kill people anywhere, anytime—the result would be chaos." —Philip Alston, former UN special rapporteur