Drones: the only game in town Abstract This paper provides an analysis on the use of drones based on theories

as described in the ambit of international relations. By so doing, the debates for and against will provide the data citing the probable justification for their use. This will be done by first providing a background on drones and their use by analyzing different news coverage by reporters such as Christianne Amanpour and different newspaper and magazine articles. The paper will also use interviews from former CIA officials, drone operators and the human rights activists to assess the evidence given for and against the use of drones. As this debate provides insights into international relations in the 21 st Century, the question of anarchy as prescribed by international relations theories will be in the forefront of these debates.

Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 2 Identify and eliminate the target: A neo-realist Perspective ...................................................................... 4 Neo-liberalism and The Just War Theory ................................................................................................. 8 Constructivism ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 14 References:............................................................................................................................................ 16

1|P a ge

Introduction Though media coverage on the use of drones has increased over the last few years, drones were developed in the mid-twentieth century. In more ways, the cold war served as the contributing factor for drone development. Fear of manned pilots falling into Soviet hands and disclosing sensitive secrets (Mikulic, 2013). In order to comprehend the impact and use of said drones as well as the anti-drone campaign, it is important to understand the definition and its use. A drone is defined as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVS) controlled by pilots from the ground or autonomously following a pre-programmed mission (Cole & Wright, 2010). Drones fall into two major categories: reconnaissance and surveillance purposes and those armed with missiles and bombs (Cole & Wright, 2010). Drones were first used in the Balkans war (Cole & Wright, 2010). Their use was intensified and escalated in Afghanistan, Iraq and CIAs undeclared war in Pakistan (Cole & Wright, 2010). Though it was President George W. Bush initiated the use of drones after 9/11, used increased under the Obama administration with 41 known strikes in Pakistan (Cole & Wright, 2010). USAF has increased combatant air patrols by 600% over the past 6 years (Cole & Wright, 2010). While the Reaper and Predator US and British UAVs- are in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are controlled via satellite from Nellis and Creech United States Air Force (USAF) base outside Las Vegas, Nevada (Cole & Wright, 2010). Ground crews launch drones from the conflict zone, then the operation is handed over to controllers at video screens in specially designed trailers in the Nevada desert (Cole & Wright, 2010). One person flies the drone, another monitors the cameras and sensors; a third is in contact with the customers, ground troops and commanders in the war zone.

2|P a ge

In October, 2013, the United States Congress held a meeting to discuss the use of drones in the Pakistani region. The audience included witnesses from the war torn area who were trying to dissuade the US government from drone attacks as well as the congress men. Only four congressmen including the one who had initiated the discussions- Rep. Alan Grayson were present for the session (Chichakyan, 2013). One of the victims, Rafiq Ur Rehman, gave an account citing the falsehood of a report handed over to Congress that mentioned the targeted area as a car. In actual fact, the drone had killed that string that holds the pearls together, his mother, contrary to media reports that stated three, four, five militants had been killed (rt.com). In another account, a 13 year old boy, Zubair told the congress of his fear of drones stating, I no longer love blue skies. In fact I prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey. When the sky brightens, drones return and we live in fear ( Abad-Santos, 2013). The accounts given above are what Human Rights activists can use in their campaign to classify use of drones in Pakistan and Yemen as war crimes (Amanpour, 2013). This information is confirmed by Brooking institution for analysis shows that in 2010, for every one militant killed, 10 civilians have died (Cole & Wright, 2010). This campaign, if successful, will be a stick in the mud for CIA Director, Leon Panettas, drones are the only game in town, perspective (Cole & Wright, 2010).

3|P a ge

Identify and eliminate the target: A neo-realist Perspective In the recent past, neo-realism has been broken down into two, offensive and defensive realism in regards to security studies and the security dilemma (Griffiths, OCallaghan &, Roach, 2008). Offensive realists are more in line with traditional realism while defensive realists suggest that how states act towards each other is determined by whether the states are friends or enemies (Lamy, 2005). Mearsheimer, an offensive realist suggests that relative power is most important as opposed to absolute power. Thus, leaders should pursue security policies that weaken potential enemies and increase their relative powers to all others. This section of the paper will use Mearsheimers assumptions alongside other key assumptions of neo -realism to analyze the use of drones by the US. According to realist thinkers, states are responsible for ensuring their own safety and survival (Dunne & Schmidt, 2005). After the declaration of war on terror by President Bush following the September 11 attack back in 2001, the United States has included use of drones to their list of controversial means of war. Now President, Barack Obama, seemed to have a different perspective as his campaign- for elections and re-elections- promised to end the war on terror (Klein, 2013). This stance seems to have since changed. He instead waged his war on terror in the shadows, using drone strikes and special surveillance to fight a brutal covert war against AlQaeda and other Islamic networks (Boyle, 2013). In his first term, had authorized and launched more than six times more drones than President Bush. These attacks intertwine with the self help perception of realists. President Obama reiterated the sentiments of his predecessor classifying a Pakistani American, Faisal Shahzad as one of those, who would attack our citizens and who would slaughter innocent men, women and children in pursuit of their murderous agenda, he went on to add, we
4|P a ge

will stop at nothing to kill and disrupt our way of life (Boyle, 2013). This was after Shahzad testified in court justifying having placed a bomb in the New York Town Square. He was protesting the drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. His justification of war mirrors an anarchic structure of international politics whereby, independent sovereign states consider themselves to be their own highest authority (Dunne & Schmidt, 2005). Before taking action, the two presidents did not recognize a higher power by declaring war and not considering the impact of international law, the two administrations justified the anarchical structure represented by neo-realists. This echoes what Rousseau said in his book, The State of War, that it is not human nature, but the anarchical system which fosters fear, jealousy, suspicion, and insecurity (Dunne & Schmidt, 2005). From a Realist point of view, 9/11 would thus bring home the perennial truth that the absence of international conflict was no indication of an irreversible qualitative change, but a temporary lapse in the ebb and flow of tensions within an anarchical system. The declaration of war on terrorism rekindled interest in the use of force generally, and the whole topic of war in particular (Buzan & Hansen, 2009).

Though the concept of anarchy is relevant across the three main theories of international relations, the arguments by Buzan & Hansen were further highlighted by former deputy director of the CIA, Phillip Mudd in an interview with CNN reporter Hala Gorani. He defended the use of drones citing them as devastatingly accurate (Krever, 2013). This was in response to the criticism given by Human Rights Watch director, Kenneth Roth. The International organization together with Amnesty international had released a report citing that more civilians (57 out of 82 in the last 6 drone attacks) had died from the use of drones (Gorani, 2013). They accused the U.S
5|P a ge

of extrajudicial killings that could even amount to war crimes. To this statement, Mudd responded stating that: Americans want war to be antiseptic, precision to me means you identify a target and you strike a target. If that definition extends to meaning We will never kill a civilian, Im going to tell you, thats not war (Krever, 2013). Though Mudd admitted that war was tragic, he never gave an indication as to whether there were plans to end the strikes soon. He however, alluded to the fact that the use of drones is not a means of war that is regulated under international law. This remark also brings with it another aspect of anarchy. The lack laws within the international system- no police means no watchdog to ensure fair play among states- has been a key argument on the part of realists to do as they wish citing that anarchy is, a war on all against all (Rutenberg, 2013). Moreover, his argument while based on the inevitability of war and eventual death, the morality on the use of drones was not put into consideration. If you want morality, go to church! the accuracy of drones though a needed advantage does not bring to account their impersonal nature. In fact, critics of drone use, have argued that the impersonal nature of using drones could in fact lead to more war because actors are far from the scene and therefore do not experience the first hand effects of war which would deter war. Journalist, Brianna Lee raises concern about

desensitization of war by cubicle warriors- drone pilots- to whom the concept of war could be reduced to a video game simulation (Lee, 2012). Moreover, the documentation and accessibility for everyone to view drone strikes, may turn war into a form of entertainment consequently leading to desensitization of war for everyone else as well (Lee, 2012).

6|P a ge

Furthermore, the accuracy that the US government is defending on one hand, is what Letta Tayler of Human Rights Watch says the grounds of war crimes should be based on as civilians are indiscriminately killed in Yemen. For instance on September 2, 2012, Tayler went on to state, an attack on a target, alleged al Qaeda militant, Abd al-Raouf al-Dahab, - was "nowhere in sight" when the United States hit a passenger van and killed 12 people returning from the market ( Cornwell & Hosenball, 2013). The findings of this section reiterate Thucydides, the strong do what they will and the weak endure what they must (Rutenberg, 2013). Rich-country governments can use drones to get rid of their enemies without any risk to themselves (Economist, 2012). That is immoral, and likely to undermine self-restraint. Another aspect of realism that is seen is that opportunity cost is put into consideration when making the decision to go to war. This means that governments seek to maximize benefits while minimizing costs. This also means that the government will only enter into combat if they are to achieve absolute gains (Lamy, 2005). This has also been seen in the decisions by governments to use drones instead of the manned fighter jets. Not only are drones cheaper than fighter jets in regards to costs, but they are also cheaper in regards to number of lives lost. Since the station of control is miles away from the targeted area, the number of soldiers lost is considerably lower. This as well as fuel efficiency makes drones a better means of war than deployment of soldiers or use of fighter jets (Brooks, 2012).

7|P a ge

Neo-liberalism and The Just War Theory In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 2009, President Obama said that, A war can only be considered just if it is waged as a last resort, in self defense, if the force used is proportional, and pains are made to spare civilians from violence wherever possible (Freinberger, 2013). This section of the paper thus seeks to analyze the justification of war and the use of drones following the principles of jus ad bellum and just war tradition. Though use of force is prohibited under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the United Nations Charter permits use of force or waging of war under Chapter 7. Article 39 of the charter restricts the use of force to humanitarian intervention under authorization of the Security Council (un.org). The charter also allows for collective or individual defense in response to an armed attack (Reus-Smit, 2005). The two provisions by the charter in the use of force form the basis for the principles of jus ad bellum. The latter was the stance that the US used when waging its war on terror as a means of justification. Jus in bello, on the other hand, are the laws that govern how war is carried out as par the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. The laws cover the principles of proportionality, targeting of civilians, and treatment of political prisoners among others (Reus-Smit, 2005). Under these precepts of self-defense, not only did the US wage war on Al-Qaeda but they also attempted to stretch self-defense beyond its limits further. They argued that since terrorists groups are diffused, the US could use drones anywhere regardless of the targets host state (Husain, 2013). This would however be a violation of state sovereignty and act of aggression prohibited under International Law (Husain, 2013). The US has managed to deter this line of thought in Yemen by bartering its military expertise to eliminate opposing civil war forces in

8|P a ge

exchange for consent. Use of force against the perpetrators violates US domestic law that limits the president to use force only against perpetrators of 9/11 and their affiliates (Husain, 2013). Though breaching its own laws is not a characteristic of neo-liberalism, the fact that US tried to do what was possible not to violate Yemeni sovereignty indicates toward respect for international regimes. Moreover, international terrorists have been known to flock civil war zones in Yemen, thus providing a justification of the US bartering; Pakistan and the US government has a tacit arrangement to allow drone attacks (Husain, 2013). This collaboration with the Pakistani and Yemeni governments also provides legal cover for the US under collective self-defense (Husain, 2013). Other precepts of justification of war that are important to analyze are the matter of proportionality, legitimacy, likelihood for success, last resort, right intentions and, discrimination (Fotion, 2007). The US has launched 357 drone strikes in Pakistan alone since 2008 and 55 in Yemen and Somalia (Matthews, 2013) combined resulting in between 2,562 and 3,325 people deaths in Pakistan between 2004 and 2012 of whom between 474 and 881 were civiliansnumber of civilian deaths is thus approximately between 8% and 47% (Brooks, 2012). In regards to proportionality these numbers far outweigh the number of lives lost in 9/11. It is however important to note the number of lives lost in all global terror attacks. Most states that have fallen victim to terror attacks are probably not as capable to take on the global war on terror in terms of costs and military capabilities. According to Mudd, the capabilities of Al-Qaeda and incidences in the US have been reduced by the use of drones (Gorani, 2013). Unlike neo-realists, neo-liberals recognize non-state actors. It is solely on this bias that the American use of drones could be qualified to neo-liberal behaviour. Not negotiating with

9|P a ge

terrorists is a stance that makes war inevitable rather than a last resort. In the defense of the US, it is difficult for one to find terrorist to sit and negotiate with them. As Cicero said, laws are silent in times of war (Freiberger, 2013). However, target ing an individual and eliminating a threat without trial or proving the person guilty also contravenes the democratic path that the Americans have based their policies on. This has been the case in the matter of extra-judicial killings of American Pakistanis who had been allegedly linked to Al-Qaeda and had been killed by drones denying them due process. For instance, the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son Samir Khan and, Ahmed Hijazi who were all Americans who died in a drone strike (Matthews, 2013). War, under neo-liberals is classified as a last resort. This is interpreted to mean that the parties should consider other means of ending the conflict before taking the plunge (Forion, 2007). As stated earlier, terrorists are not a clear and cut entity as it would be if the US was in conflict with a state. Negotiations and other means for resolution would probably have been the steps to be taken first. The argument against the morality of drones use has been given. In his speech to the Andrews Air Force Base, President Obama proved that the decision to launch drones is not one made without any moral consequences conveying the weight of his decision to go to war. In his speech, the President cited the difficulty of having to put citizens in harms way an d the decision to use force against individuals as, the hardest thing I do as President (True, 2013). He went on to state that force alone would not be the driving force for American safety. He also emphasized the need for, a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war- through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments (True, 2013). Lack of this would therefore be self-defeating and have adverse effects on the state. This is emphasized by his May 2013 speech
10 | P a g e

at the National Defense University (NDU), where the president promised to end the war on terror and restrict drone usage to restricted targets and avoid civilian casualties (Dreyfuss, 2013). Moreover, the argument on the desensitization of war by use of drones debases Brianna Lees corridor warriors stance. P. W. Singer, a fellow from Brookings Inst itute in his book, Wired for War states that at times, drone pilots undergo more stress than some deployed soldiers (Lee, 2012). This is explained by the whiplash transition whereby drone pilots spend their day in a virtual war zone then after killing enemy combatants, they have to return home to their families (Lee, 2012). This sentiment is similar to the account given to Hala Gorani by Brandon Bryant, a former drone operator. In his interview he explained how he killed a person for the first time in 2007 as he was in a control station in Nevada and the three targets were walking down a dirt road in Afghanistan (Mullen, 2013). At the point of his retirement in 2011- he turned down a $109,000 bonus to continue- he was given a document totaling the number of people he killed in missions (Mullen, 2013). The total number was 1, 626 a fact that made Bryant, sick to his stomach (Mullen, 2013). This theory has been instrumental in highlighting the issues of drone usage and its importance in eradicating terrorists. However, the U.S. Defense Department has repeatedly highlighted how drones prevent deaths of American soldiers and prevents the nation from terrorist attacks brings us back to self-interest (Mullen, 2013). This is not to say that liberal thought does not cater for self-interest. Liberal thought is more inclined to cooperation and collective security; however, the US has made it clear that the goals and objectives are solely for the protection of Americans. The universal principles of ethics include: do what you can to minimize the suffering of others, do not harm others or yourself among others (Fotion, 2007). In this regard, the US has failed.
11 | P a g e

Constructivism

Mudd, had mentioned that the use of drones had allowed them to go where Americans did not have the capability to do so before (Gorani, 2013). To this, one question was left unanswered, at what cost? Some skeptics to the use of drones have argued that the tragedy can have real consequences that drone strikes foment anger and, in turn, terrorism (Gorani, 2013). I dont buy it, Mudd told Gorani, I understand people are angry with these attacks. But if youre arguing as a practitioner whether this kills terrorists and eliminates terrorism, I think that the track record on the elimination of al Qaeda operational leaders is indisputable (Gorani, 2013).

Unlike the other theories that only bring national interest into the forefront of analysis, constructivists call for an understanding of state actions as a pattern of action that shapes and is shaped by identities over time (Griffiths, OCallaghan &, Roach, 2008). For instance, post-9/11 America, there has been a notable shift in American foreign policy from one of geo-politics to an era of global politics since 9/11 (Lindsay, 2003). Successive presidents sought to end a state from dominating any other to the extent of participating in two world wars. This justifies another constructivist idea that social facts exist because of human agreement (Barnett, 2005). This goes to show that ideology and any treaties or policies ratified are changeable as par the environment or crises that a state is going through. The US played a pivotal role in ending the European conflict and striving for peace within the continent. Today, the US has declared war and sent drones to Iran, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia (Matthews, 2013).

Moreover, Lindsay goes on to prove how this shift in ideology could consequently lead to the change of perception towards the US to one of skepticism and resentment even among ally states. In his article, Lindsay also highlights a gap between the U.S. and European attitudes
12 | P a g e

continues to be fueled by the growing perception that Washington cares only about its own interests and is willing to use its muscle to get its way (Lindsay, 2003).

European elites increasingly criticize the United States as being morally, socially, and culturally retrograde. Europe has also begun to exercise diplomatic muscle in international institutions and other arenas, seeking to create new international regimes designed to limit America's recourse to its hard power... The sustainability of American power ultimately depends on the extent to which others believe it is employed not just in U.S. interests but in their interests as well (Linsay, 2003).

Robert Greenwals, a filmmaker who had been undertaking a project in Pakistan also testified during the congressional meeting on use of drones. He alluded to the fact that the ongoing operations waged by the US in the alleged counterterrorism were breeding contempt towards Americans at a rate that makes Ak-Qaeda jealous (rt.com). He went on to confirm a former US State Department Officials claims that drone strikes in Yemen were cr eating dozens of new militants with each attack (rt.com). He, Greenwald, stated that, there were 100 or 200 fanatics, but now you have 800,000 people in this area who hate the United States because of this policy (rt.com). The accounts cited above justify constructivists line of thought, that, knowledge shapes how actors interpret and construct social reality (Barnett, 2005). This is seen from two perspectives, those of the Americans against terrorism and those of the victims of the drone attacks. On one hand, the Americans view terrorism as a global threat that needs to be eliminated by any means necessary for the sake of global peace. On the other hand, victims of drone attacks who have been injured or have lost their family members view Americans as an enemy rather than messiah.
13 | P a g e

One clear example of this is seen in the illustration given at the beginning of this paper. When the 12-year old boy says how he dreads blue skies because the drones will begin their work. This indicates the level of fear that the American drones-consequently Americans- instill in this region. Moreover, even with a congressional meeting that was meant to hear accounts on these drones, only four congressmen were present. This already puts across the rigid stand of the support of the congress on the use of drones.

Conclusion The objective of this paper was to link various lines of thought in international relations to the use of drones. Neo-realism made a comeback as a relevant theory within the drone debate especially since post-9/11 brought with it, revived concerns about the use of force as the central theme of Security (Buzan & Hansen, 2009). However, the theory failed in some respects. The theory validated drone strikes in Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan as a safer and cheaper means of warfare. However, the drones are not being used in a war between two state actors; they are being used as a counteractive measure in the war on terror. Validating the use of drones in its primary agenda, to end terrorism, would mean recognizing terrorism and consequently legitimizing non-state actors. This would be in contradiction to realist thought-which unlike neoliberal thoughtonly recognizes states as key players in international relations

(Griffiths, OCallaghan &, Roach, 2008). Though the theories used in this research provided ample data on drone usage, they failed in recognizing its effects in the international system. That is why constructivism would be the best theory on this matter. For future co-operation and collaboration between the United States and the afflicted states, it is important for the U.S. to review its stance on drones. With the increase

14 | P a g e

in campaigns by human rights organizations, the rigidity in this matter could affect states stance on International Law not to mention, the image of U.S. as a role-model for democracy could be negatively affected. That is why this paper also sees constructivism as the best theory to deter states from the sentiment that drones are the only game in town. Though the U.S. has tried to justify the use of drones in one way or the other, it is important to weigh their efficiency against their effect.

15 | P a g e

References: Abad-Santos, A. (2013, October 29). This 13-Year-Old is Scared When the Sky is Blue because of Our Drones. Global Drones Watch. Retrieved From

http://droneswatch.org/2013/10/29/this-13-year-old-is-scared-when-the-sky-is-bluebecause-of-our-drones/ Barnett, M. (2005). Social Constructivism. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations 3rd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Biko, S. (2009). Realism [Class Notes]. United States International University. Boyle, M. J. (2013). The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare. International Affairs, 89(1), pp. 1-29. Retrieved from

http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International%20Affairs/2013/89 _1/89_1Boyle.pdf Brooks, R. (2012, September 5). Whats not Wrong with Drones? The wildly overblown case against remote-controlled war. FP National Security. Retrieved from

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/whats_not_wrong_with_drones?wp_lo gin_redirect=0 Buzan, B. & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chichakyan, G. (2013, October 29). Victims of Drone Strike Testify Before Congress [Video file]. Retrieved From http://rt.com/usa/rehman-drone-grayson-hearing-924/

16 | P a g e

Cole, C. & Wright, J. (2010). What are Drones? Drone Wars UK. Retrieved from http://dronewars.net/aboutdrone/ Cornwell, S. & Hosenball, M. (2013, October 22). U.S broke international law by killing civilians with drones: rights groups. Reuters. Retrieved from

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/us-usa-yemen-dronesidUSBRE99L1A420131022 Dreyfuss, B. (2013, June 5). Will Obama end the long war on terror? The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/174682/will-obama-end-long-war-terror Dunne, T. & Schmidt, B. C. (2005). Realism. Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (Eds.). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations 3rd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fotion, N. (2007). War & Ethics: A new just war theory. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. Freiberger, E. (2013, July 18). Just War Theory and the Ethics of Drone Warfare. EInternational Relations. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/18/just-war-theoryand-the-ethics-of-drone-warfare/ Gorani, H. (2013, October 22). Former CIA Official Mudd Defends Use of Drones [Video file]. Retrieved from http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/22/former-cia-official-phil-

mudd-defends-use-of-drones/?iref=allsearch Griffiths, M., OCallaghan, T. &, Roach, S. C. (2008). International Relations: the key concepts 2nd Ed. London: Routledge.
17 | P a g e

Husain, W. (2013, October 31). The obvious illegality of drones. Tribune with the International New York Times. Retrieved From http://tribune.com.pk/story/625220/the-obviousillegality-of-drones/ Klein, E. (2013, May 23). READ: President Obamas speech on the future of the war on terror. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/read-president-obamasspeech-on-the-future-of-the-war-on-terror/ Krever, M. (2013, October 22). Former CIA Official Mudd Defends Use of Drones. CNN. Retrieved from http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/22/former-cia-official-phil-

mudd-defends-use-of-drones/?iref=allsearch Lamy, S. L. (2005). Contemporary mainstream approaches: Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism. Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (Eds.). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations 3rd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, B. (2012, September 13). 5 things you need to know about drones. PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/drones/ Lindsay, J. M. (2003). The globalization of politics: American foreign policy for a new century. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/world/globalizationpolitics-american-foreign-policy-new-century/p6330 Matthews, D. (2013, March 8). Everything you need to know about the drone debate, in one FAQ. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

18 | P a g e

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/08/everything-you-needto-know-about-the-drone-debate-in-one-faq/ Mikulic, C. M. (2013). Theories of International Relations and their prediction for the proliferation of drones (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from

http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-03262013-102418/unrestricted/Mikulic.pdf Mullen, J. (2013, October 25). Report: Former drone operator shares his inner torment. CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/us/drone-operator-interview/ Rentoul, J. (2012, November 22). The arguments for and against drones. The Independent. Retrieved from http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/11/22/the-arguments-for-and-

against-drones/ Reus-Smit, C. (2005). International Law. Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (Eds.). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations 3rd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. True, D. (2013, July 28). The Limits of Drones, the Law and Obama. E-International Relations. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/28/the-limits-of-drones-the-law-and-obama/

19 | P a g e