C O R P O R A T I O N
Clarifying the Rules for Targeted Killing
An Analytical Framework for Policies Involving
Long-Range Armed Drones
Lynn E. Davis, Michael McNerney, and Michael D. Greenberg
• To be deemed legitimate under international law, a targeted
killing using drones must successfully pass through a series of
interlocking “gates” that guide policy decisions; our analysis of
the issues raised by international law shows that governments
need to make multiple interpretive judgments.
•
Curr
ent U.S. policies for targeted killing are characterized by
ambiguities in interpretations of international law, generality in
end-use requirements for recipients of drones, and willingness to
allow international norms to arise from the practices of coun-
tries, including those of the United States.
• Policymakers in the United States and other countries need to
dene an overall approach to targeted killing using drones that
protects civilians and human rights while also allowing reason-
able latitude in the ght against terrorism.
•
Buil
t on critical elements of international law, we have designed
an analytical framework for use in dening such an overall
approach and dened three illustrative policy approaches with
clear differences in their emphases on exibility or restrictions in
drone operations.
• Adopting an overall approach for the use of drones in targeted
killing would provide clarity and specicity in U.S. policies and
operations, a basis for building public support both at home
and abroad, and assurance that trade partners comply with
U.S. requirements for their lawful use.
•
Count
ries with long-range armed drones could also employ our
analytical framework to dene international norms based on
the calculus of preventing the unlawful use of drones by other
countries by agreeing to restrictions on their own operations.
Key findings
U.S.
use of long-range armed drones has
increased over the past decade, both
in the number of strikes and the
number of terrorist groups being targeted.
1
At the same
time, more countries are starting to acquire and utilize
drones, opening up the possibility that their use could
threaten stability in dierent regions of the world—and
potentially undermine U.S. interests.
Debates have arisen over many aspects of U.S. tar-
geted killing, with one important focus being on whether
the United States has been conducting drone operations
in conformity with international law.
2
e use of so called
“signature” strikes against suspected terrorists has been
singled out by critics who allege that some targets have
been neither combatants in a war zone nor positively iden-
tied as al Qaeda or other terrorist leaders. Worries also
have arisen that other countries might use armed drones
in secret, without clear legal foundation, against those
not clearly identied as combatants in a conict, and to
threaten a nation’s sovereignty and domestic rule of law.
3
What is striking in the debates over questions
related to international law and U.S. targeted killing
policies is how U.S. government ocials have left
(1) ambiguities in their interpretations of international
law covering drone strikes, (2) inconsistencies in their
policy statements, (3) generality in U.S. export control
policy with respect to the requirements and expecta-
tions for use by recipients, and (4) a willingness to
allow international norms to arise from the practices of
countries, including those of the United States.
Our analysis highlights a need for greater clarity,
specicity, and consistency in U.S. international legal
policies involving targeted killing using drones. To meet
this need, we have designed a framework for policymakers
