Entering another sovereign state’s territory with military intentions and no permission is generally frowned upon by the international community, but if no other options exist, drones would be the best way to enter. If for whatever reason America were to stay completely out of the business of, for example, Pakistan, that nation’s army would be able to do whatever it wanted. In the case of Pakistan, their army is known to “regularly torture and execute detainees, and... often indiscriminately bomb civilian areas or use scorched-earth tactics against militant groups” (Byman). The immensely bloody and savage tactics employed by many middle-eastern countries go very much against the beliefs of Americans, so it is clear that the best possible …show more content…
Drones use for targeted killing is covered by international humanitarian law, or IHL, as long as all usage follows the principles set by IHL: distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and precaution (Radsan 14). In order for a drone to engage a target, the target must be confirmed as a “functional combatant,” which is distinction. People “directly participating in hostilities” are considered to be functional combatants and are legally allowed to be targeted under American law. Next, it must be certain that there is military necessity; the target will not be killed without any military advantage. Third, proportionality is required in making sure that an unreasonable amount of force is not used. The attack must minimize collateral damage and keep from using excess force. Lastly, drone strikes must use precaution. To do this, the attack will have to ensure that all measures to protect civilians and their property have been taken (Radsan 14). Altogether, drone strikes are now very regulated and only used once each of the previous steps has been taken and the target can be safely