Strategies to Justify and Legitimate Armed Drone Strikes. The Reasons for the Differing Strategies of the US, the UK and Israel to Legitimate and Justify Their Armed Drone Policies
236 Pages Posted: 8 Jun 2016
Date Written: November 17, 2014
With the steadily increasing use of armed UAVs, Western governments set the legal and moral precedents for the use of unmanned aerial technologies. Yet one particularity of armed drone attacks is that since the beginning of such operations in 2001, the governments of the states under review have been following a notably restrictive information policy towards the public. This paper works out in detail the legitimation efforts and strategies of the US, the UK and Israel regarding the strategies to legitimate and justify armed drone strikes, arguing that the strategies differ as a result of their differing domestic political situations, perceptions of threat, and roles and identities vis-à-vis the international community. It finds that the three states under review are governed by differing circumstances regarding both their domestic and international political circumstances, as well as their underlying identities. This results in correspondingly different legitimation efforts, when justifying their use of armed drones.
Keywords: armed drones, legitimation, US foreign policy, UK foreign policy, Israel foreign policy, drones, UAVs, drone strikes, United States, United Kingdom, Israel
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation