Drones And The Boundaries Of The Battle Field Summary

Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield Article Review

The article “Drones and The Boundaries of the Battle Field” was written by an experienced former U.S Navy who flew the F-14s from 1989-1993. Currently he is an associate Professor of Law at the Ohio Northern University. In his article, he discusses about the capabilities and limitations and near-term uses of drones. In addition, notes down the rules and regulations of the usage of UAVs and explains why the debate about the boundaries of battlefield is strictly defined by geopolitical lines. The journal article has precise in-depth insight pertaining to the implications of the use of drones within the international humanitarian law framework. Drones used in armed conflict have been
Lewis made a point when he discussed about the geographically limited scope of IHL proposed by commentators critical of the drone use in areas like Pakistan and Yemen. This view of the boundaries of the battlefield is compared with the historical understanding of where the laws of armed conflict apply in international armed conflict and the role that geography has traditionally played in restricting IHLs scope. Additionally, the author clearly made a point when it comes to the usage of UAVs; this creates the foundation of rules and regulations of how such machines/technology should be handled. W. Lewis is not biased when he looked at the limitations the drones. As an experienced former U.S Navy pilot, he agrees on the disadvantages that such technology carries along with it. The power and the speed of the drones are slow compared any other planes, it can be easily shot down by manned fighter aircrafts and they are also vulnerable to jamming. This is when the signals sent and controlled by the operator can be intercepted and disrupted. The author also achieved in stressing the importance of the main concepts and core principles of IHL; it considers all people as civilians unless or until they make affirmative steps to change status. As a result, he simply differentiated between a combatant and a non combatant and gave valid examples and cases concerning such cases. In agreement with the Michael W. Lewis, drones should be employed within the framework of legal compliance
Lewis was unsuccessful in not mentioning the studies and investigations that have been taken by human rights groups showing the population in the attacked areas consider this type of warfare unethical. The drones are invisible and kill seemingly indiscriminately. In the regions where drones have flown over, that leads to trauma and terror. It also comes along with one of the latest UAV developments that concerns human rights groups is the way which the attacks, they allege, have more towards targeting groups based on perceived pattern of behavior that look suspicious from aerial surveillance, rather than relying on intelligence about specific Al-Qaeda activists. Finally, the author did not explain if the Western power (USA) or any other state is responsible for the attacks outside recognized war zones did not establish independent investigations into each killing; then the UN itself should consider establishing an investigatory body. The article is not deep enough in elaborating more on the rules and regulations on the IHL regarding the killings by drones, the examples were very few and not illustrative on where the attacks and usage of drones are prohibited and questionable and the article only targets limited audiences such as law students and experts of law.
In conclusion, drones can be used in different ways in armed conflict. Due to the fact the international humanitarian law does not always have clear answers on the use of such weapons and other new technologies in