Drone strikes have become an integral part of modern warfare. They can be used tactically to achieve limited military objectives or strategically as part of a strategy to meet broader political and military goals. They can also be used by both state and non-state actors, including terrorist organizations. While scholars and policymakers have studied drone use from a variety of perspectives, few have addressed how public perceptions of legitimacy shape the way governments employ drones.
Our study examined the patterns of drone strikes that different countries adopt and found that how a strike is framed can have important implications for its perceived legitimacy. The results showed that Americans and French citizens perceive certain patterns of strikes as more legitimate than others, and these perceptions are influenced by how the strike is used and the type of constraint that is applied to it.
In particular, when officials impose a unilateral constraint on drone strikes—such as a “near-certain” standard of no civilian casualties—it raises the perception that the strike is more legitimate than when it is conducted by a multilateral body, such as the United Nations. This finding suggests that if officials want to make drone strikes more legitimate, they should incorporate constraints that are both multilateral and enforceable. This could include augmenting secretive negotiations with intervening states with the option of a U.N.-approved mandate that would guarantee no civilian casualties for strikes conducted by the interventionary state. It could also mean incorporating a robust, independent oversight system into the drone strike process that enables officials to better justify their actions.