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.

This thesis focuses on the issue of drone strikes as a means of targeted killing of high value targets suspected of terrorist activities or affiliations. The United States of America has been using this method of elimination since the year 2001 as part of the Global War on Terrorism. However this practice raises a series of moral questions. It creates a new environment of alienation of the target and the person pulling the trigger. This thesis examines the compliance of drone strikes and the Global War on Terrorism as such with the Just War Theory. This theory is the leading concept in warfare ethics and offers a comprehensive research pattern. The finding of this thesis is that the use of drones, as it is employed today, is in conflict with the principles of this theory and therefore unjust. This finding is demonstrated by the research of two concrete drone strikes. Additionally, the Global War on Terrorism is also assessed to be an unjust war and therefore this thesis offers a comprehensive insight into the topic as it assesses both the practice and the overall context of drone strikes.