In warzones, ordinary commercially-available drones are used for extraordinary reconnaissance and information gathering. They can also be used for bombings - a drone carrying an explosive charge is potentially a powerful weapon. At the same time asymmetric warfare has become the norm - with large states increasingly fighting marginal terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere. Here, Nicholas Grossman shows how we are entering the age of the drone terrorist - groups such as Hezbollah are already using them in the Middle East. Grossman will analyse the ways in which the United States, Israel and other advanced militaries use aerial drones and ground-based robots to fight non-state actors (e.g. ISIS, al Qaeda, the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) and how these groups, as well as individual terrorists, are utilizing less advanced commercially-available drones to fight powerful state opponents. Robotics has huge implications for the future of security, terrorism and international relations and this will be essential reading on the subject of terrorism and drone warfare.

This book analyses the US drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan to assess whether the 'pre-emptive' use of combat drones to kill terrorists is ever legally justified. Exploring the doctrinal discourse of pre-emption vis-à-vis the US drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan, the book shows that the debate surrounding this discourse encapsulates crucial tensions between the permission and limits of the right of self-defence. Drawing from the long history of God-given and man-made laws of war, this book employs positivism as a legal frame to explore and explain the doctrine of pre-emption and analyses the doctrine of the state's rights to self-defence as it stretches into pre-emptive or preventive use of force. The book investigates why the US chose the recourse to pre-emption through the use of combat drones in the 'war on terror' and whether there is a potential future for the pre-emption of terrorism through combat drones. The author argues that the policy to 'kill first' is easy to adopt; however, any disregard for the web of legal requirements surrounding the policy has the potential to undercut the legal claims of an armed act. The book enables the framing and analysis of such controversies in legal terms as opposed to a choice between law and policy. An examination of the legal dilemma concerning drone warfare, this book will be of interest to academics in the fields of international relations, Asian politics, South Asian studies, and security studies, in particular, global security law, new wars, and emerging technologies of warfare.

Presenting a robust conversation among leading scholars in the areas of international legal standards, counterterrorism strategy, humanitarian law, and the ethics of force, this book takes account of current American drone campaigns and the developing legal, ethical, and strategic implications of this new way of warfare.

The United States increasingly relies on unmanned aerial vehicles to target insurgent and terrorist groups around the world. This monograph analyzes the available research and evidence that assesses the political and military consequences of drone strikes. It is not clear if drone strikes have degraded their targets, or that they kill enough civilians to create sizable public backlashes against the United States. Drones are a politically and militarily attractive way to counter insurgents and terrorists, but, paradoxically, this may lead to their use in situations where they are less likely to be effective and where there is difficulty in predicting the consequences.

This book is a critical exploration of the war on terror from the prism of armed drones and globalization. It is particularly focused on the United States’ use of the drones, and the systemic dysfunctions that globalization has caused to international political economy and national security, creating backlash in which the desirability of globalization is not only increasingly questioned, but the resultant dissension about its desirability appears increasingly militating against the international consensus needed to fight the war on terror. To underline the controversial nature of the war on terror and the pragmatic weapon (armed drones) fashioned for its prosecution, some of the elements of this controversy have been interrogated in this book. They include, amongst others, the doubt over whether the war should have been declared in the first place because terrorist attacks hardly meet the United Nations’ casus belli – an armed attack. There are critics, as highlighted in this book, who believe that the war on terror is not an armed conflict properly so called, and, thus, remains only a law enforcement issue. The United States and all the states taking part in the war on terror are obligated to observe International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It is within this context of IHL that this book appraises the drone as a weapon of engagement, discussing such issues as personality and signature strikes as well as the implications of the deployment of spies as drone strikers rather than the Defence Department, the members of the U.S armed forces. This book will be of value to researchers, academics, policymakers, professionals, and students in the fields of security studies, terrorism, the law of armed conflict, international humanitarian law, and international politics.

Douglas Dillon Fellow Micah Zenko analyzes the potentially serious consequences, both at home and abroad, of a lightly overseen drone program and makes recommendations for improving its governance.