EPRS_BRI_2025_772885_EN.pdf — page 11

Military drones 
11 
Katharine Fortin stress that widespread civilian suffering, even if unintended, may still breach 
international legal standards. Moreover, the use of drones for what are referred to as 'personalised' 
strikes – targeting individuals – raises the issue of extrajudicial killings. Even when targeting 
combatants, drones must comply with legal safeguards. There must be an imminent threat and no 
viable alternative to lethal force. Concerns also persist around drone operators' reliance on visual 
data, which can be misinterpreted, especially in conflicts involving insurgents who may appear 
indistinguishable from civilians. Studies have shown that image-based targeting can introduce 
cognitive bias, further complicating legal compliance. There is also a moral and legal dilemma 
regarding surrender. ICRC guidance suggests that combatants must be allowed the opportunity to 
surrender where possible. Yet drones are often used to strike without warning, giving targets 
minimal chance to surrender. While footage of soldiers surrendering to drones occasionally 
circulates, the dominant narrative is one of lethal force being delivered remotely and 
instantaneously. Despite drones falling within the scope of existing legal regimes, enforcement has 
not kept pace with technological developments. Legal scholars and humanitarian organisations 
continue to raise concerns that the current use of drones – especially autonomous or semi-
autonomous systems – may outstrip the ability of existing laws to regulate them effectively. 
The UN's New Agenda for Peace has highlighted the critical need for strong governance frameworks 
to regulate emerging military technologies. The ICRC defines autonomous weapons as systems with 
'critical function' autonomy, allowing them to independently select (i.e. search for, detect, identify, 
and track) and attack (i.e. intercept, neutralise, damage, or destroy) targets. These AI-powered 
systems, which may not be adequately vetted by decision-makers, raise serious concerns regarding 
accountability, proportionality and compliance with international humanitarian law. Since 2018, UN 
Secretary-General António Guterres has denounced LAWS as 'politically unacceptable and morally 
repugnant', calling for their prohibition under international law. The United Nations' Group of 
Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE LAWS) continues to examine 
the ethical and security concerns surrounding these technologies. This forum, which brings together 
UN member states, NGOs, industry representatives and researchers, aims to establish common 
principles for the governance of autonomous weapon systems. In October 2023, the UN General 
Assembly adopted a resolution highlighting the potential threats posed by LAWS to global security 
and stressing the urgent need for a coordinated international response. 
The EU, as a strong advocate for peace and human rights, plays an active role in these discussions. 
Several EU Member States have been instrumental in advancing the UNGA resolution, and the EU 
actively engages in the GGE on LAWS. Additionally, the Commission and the Parliament set up a 
working group on UAS prior to the publication of the drone strategy 2.0., outlining guidelines for the 
responsible use of drones in both civilian and military contexts. However, within the EU – and even 
more so on a global scale – there is no consensus on whether fully autonomous weapons should be 
regulated, particularly regarding the conditions under which they may be deployed and the 
responsibilities of their operators. Despite growing awareness of the ethical, legal, and security risks 
associated with autonomous drones in warfare, the EU has yet to develop a unified and coordinated 
international strategy to address these concerns. 
European Parliament's position 
Parliament has articulated a cautious stance on military drones, emphasising strict adherence to 
international law, particularly international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It 
has expressed grave concerns over the use of armed drones outside the international legal 
framework, especially regarding extrajudicial targeted killings, which it deems a violation of 
international law and a potential act of aggression when conducted without the consent of the 
targeted state's government. Parliament has called for the EU and its Member States to oppose and 
ban the practice of extrajudicial targeted killings, ensure that Member States do not perpetrate or 
facilitate unlawful targeted killings and include armed drones in relevant arms control and 
disarmament regimes. Additionally, Parliament advocates for transparency and accountability in 
drone operations, urging prompt, independent investigations into allegations of civilian casualties