The United States increasingly has resorted to the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for targeted killings of terrorists as a counterterrorism strategy. More states and terrorist organizations also are acquiring UAVs and this development can lead to indiscriminate and unregulated use of UAVs. Previous researchers have indicated the surveillance ability and precise weapon delivery capacity of UAVs make them a weapon of choice for U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Although the U.S. government estimated the collateral damage involved in the use of UAVs at 3-5%, nongovernmental sources put it at 25-40%. A gap exists in the current literature regarding public perception of the use of UAVs as a counterterrorism measure and how international humanitarian law (IHL) may interpret employment of UAVs. The purpose of this quantitative, cross-sectional study is to determine if a relationship exists among public support of the use of UAVs for targeted killing, attitudes towards counterterrorism, and public perceptions of IHL. An online survey was used to collect data from 104 adult participants using the convenience sampling method. Logistic regression, ANOVA, and correlational analyses helped to determine the relationships. The outcomes contributed to the existing literature by providing important data related to public perception of the use of UAVs with the potential to enhance global peace and security. The results contributed to social change initiatives through the potential to facilitate the establishment of international and domestic legal frameworks to regulate the future employment of UAVs for targeted killing.

Contemporary conflicts are marked by support relationships between partners for the purpose of achieving common goals, namely partnered military operations. These have been seen to amplify positive or negative repercussions of conflict, like civilian harm and restraint from such. This study explores what influences restraint in partnered military operations by examining the effect of civilian casualty tracking, and asking how does the implementation of civilian casualty tracking mechanisms affect restraint in partnered military operations? This study builds on liberal internationalism, attributing restraint to external pressures. This thesis hypothesises that restraint in a partnered military operation will be higher, the more comprehensive the civilian casualty tracking. Using the method of within-case comparative analysis, resembling a structured focused comparison, the hypothesis is tested on the case of Afghanistan. Results indicate support for the theorized relationship, as low comprehensiveness of civilian casualty tracking is correlated with low restraint, while comprehensive civilian casualty tracking is correlated with higher restraint. The correlation is in line with the expected direction, yet not perfect, indicating that other variables may influence restraint in interaction effects. Further research is needed to determine causal factors and trace underlying mechanisms.