Frequently Asked Questions: International humanitarian law and the use of drones in armed conflict

No. Armed drones are not expressly prohibited under treaty or customary IHL. They are legally comparable to weapons launched from manned aircraft such as helicopters or other combat aircraft.  

Their use must comply with the same rules that apply to all weapons during armed conflict. These include the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. This means drones may only be used to target combatants and military objectives, and all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or at least minimize civilian harm.  

There is no general prohibition on armed drones because they are not considered inherently indiscriminate or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. However, their use may be prohibited if they deploy weapons that are banned outright (such as antipersonnel mines, cluster munitions, biological or chemical weapons).  

Drone operations must comply with IHL at all times. This means:

• Attacks may only be directed at combatants and military objectives.
• Indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks are prohibited.
• All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or minimize civilian harm.

These rules apply whether a weapon is launched from a drone or from a crewed aircraft.

From a humanitarian perspective, any weapon system that improves precision and reduces civilian harm is preferable. Whether drones achieve this in practice depends on their technical characteristics, the quality of information available to operators, and how they are used in specific contexts.

Drone operators may be physically distant from the battlefield, but they identify targets, control weapon systems and make decisions to fire. They generally operate under responsible command structures. Under IHL, both operators and their chain of command are accountable for ensuring that drone operations respect the IHL rules of distinction, proportionality and precautions.

Distance does not lessen legal obligations. Drone operators are no different from pilots of manned aircraft in terms of their responsibilities or their status under the law of armed conflict.

The persistent presence, sound or sight of drones can have serious psychological effects on civilians. It can cause fear, stress and anxiety, especially when it is unclear whether the drones are being used for military, security or humanitarian purposes. This can create a constant sense of unpredictability, insecurity, vulnerability and helplessness. 

These can in turn generate or amplify post-traumatic stress disorder that is common in conflict settings. These effects can disrupt daily life, limit freedom of movement, and in some cases trigger displacement. Children may be particularly affected, with consequences for their well-being, education and ability to go to school or play.

FPV drones – often quadcopters operated through a front-facing camera – are less technologically sophisticated than larger fixed-wing drones and can be flown by individuals with no flight training or special qualifications. They are increasingly used for one-way missions, where the drone is crashed into a target while carrying an explosive payload. 

Their growing use raises several humanitarian and legal concerns: 

• Low resolution analogue cameras often make it difficult for operators to distinguish between lawful and unlawful targets.
• Poor image quality compromises assessments of proportionality. Low quality images may not allow the attacker to assess whether the attack is expected to cause civilian harm, let alone whether such harm may be excessive compared to the military advantage.
• One-way drones that fail to find or reach their targets may become explosive hazards or be redirected toward uncertain or unlawful targets. 

These factors significantly increase risks to civilians. 

The use of drones for both military and civilian purposes can undermine the principle of distinction. Commercial drones adapted for military use may look identical to those used for humanitarian activities, increasing the risk of confusion, mistrust, or threats to humanitarian access or safety.

Armed drones may pose additional risks to humanitarian personnel and facilities, which are protected under IHL. Technical malfunctions, targeting errors or the inability to distinguish humanitarian from military actors can endanger civilians and humanitarian workers.

The ICRC monitors these impacts and raises concerns with relevant authorities to help prevent and reduce harm.

“Drones” can refer to different technologies, which are regulated under IHL according to their functions: 

• Drones as delivery systems: if a drone delivers a munition that meets the definition of a mine then it should be considered a ‘remotely-delivered mine’ and relevant prohibitions and restrictions on mines, booby-traps or other devices will apply. This could also be an AWS in some circumstances.
• Drones as a munition (e.g. one-way drone, loitering munition): these systems hover and then strike, destroying themselves on impact. In such cases, the drone itself is the munition.
• Drones with autonomous functions: some drones could have autonomous capabilities that qualify them as AWS – systems that, once activated, select and engage one or more targets without further human intervention. 

Existing IHL regulates AWS, including prohibiting inherently indiscriminate systems. However, the ICRC considers that current IHL rules do not fully address the humanitarian, legal and ethical questions challenges raised by AWS. We continue to call for new rules to clarify how IHL applies to these technologies and to address broader humanitarian risks and fundamental ethical concerns. 

New, legally binding rules would offer the benefits of legal certainty and stability. We are concerned that, without such rules, further developments in the design and use of AWS may give rise to practices that erode the protections presently afforded to the victims of war.

IHL protects anyone recognized as hors de combat, including people who clearly express an intention to surrender. They must not be attacked.

These rules apply regardless of the technology involved. However, practical challenges may arise – for example, whether conditions allow for safe evacuation, detention or basic care.

Surrender in interactions with AWS raises further concerns, as such systems may be unable to reliably recognize or interpret signs of surrender. This increases the risk of misidentifying a sign of surrender.

The ICRC continues to monitor such developments closely and to underline the need for human judgement and control to ensure respect for IHL in all circumstances.