Category: Drones

Unmanned aerial vehicles or UVA’s, commonly called drones are used in areas from warfare, border enforcement to tracking wildfire and crop dusting. It is an aircraft that flies without a human being on board.

As drone technology is evolving very fast every single day to the ways it expands the capabilities of the user in varies way, but also comes with the concerns of privacy and security issues.

Military drones are used for a variety of purposes such as reconnaissance, surveillance, remote sensing, armed attacks and warfare; further uses include target monitoring and designation, as well as the elimination of designated targets. Each of these purposes for which drones are deployed have their own ethical issues. Drones can be systemized in many ways, some of which include the air space within where they run, as well the roles it plays within the airspace within which they operate in.

In order to understand the ethical issues involved with military drones, we first must have an understanding as to what is ethics. As Dwight Furrow quotes “ethics is related to evaluating actions and actions are performed by those capable of being moral agents”.

One of the main concerns around military drone use is the incidence of civilian casualties. We may think that drones are meant to be very accurate, but the most recent studies indicate that manned aircraft are more accurate than their drone counter parts.

Along with the concerns of civilian casualties there are also concerns about the accountability of drones. Part of the issue that we might face in the coming future is how to move forward in a way that will get the good uses of drones and get the harmful uses drop off to the side. In military context, it can be harder but in the civilian context there are some possibilities of very cost-effective uses of unmanned ariel vehicles that would be very useful.

Another concern of using drones is that even when legitimate military attacks are destroyed with the use of military drones, there is a possibility of collateral damage.

There are some positive outcomes as to using drones as well. These are that when using drones in the context where killing is involved, it takes into account the threats to operators of drones and when it operates from a distance lessens the possibility of the loss of equipment. Military drones are also useful because they are much cheaper than traditionally used military weapons and are improving day by day to become accurate.

In conclusion, drones improve military capability and create an influential element of force protection, allowing humans to be removed from dangerous environments and mundane jobs. However, there are moral, legal and political dangers associated with their use. There may come a time when drones could be developed and are able to independently and ethically engage a legitimate target with greater reliability than a human, until then we must take into consideration about the benefits and dangers of drones and act accordingly.

References

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenrice1/2019/02/04/eyes-in-the-sky-the-public-has-privacy-concerns-about-drones/#48993df26984
2. https://medium.com/@codypafford/legal-and-ethical-issues-involving-civilian-use-of-drones-5cb2ce8ac0a7

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), also known as drones, as a means of destruction or harm has been debated in the media for many years now. Since Barack Obama’s arguably ‘most controversial legacy’, increased speculation about the ethics, accuracy and the just war theories has arisen. Critics argue that the west has attempted to humanize warfare due to its ‘bloodless’ nature when using drones bidding to reduce the mental repercussions associated with committing violent crimes of murder. The US’ disclosure of the statistics associated with the deaths of civilians have also been investigated due to the minimum risk of collateral damage been suggested otherwise. From a political and financial standpoint, drones cannot be dismissed as an effective warfare strategy, however the ethical implications are severe and should not be overlooked.

The drone itself is said to be notoriously reliable due to the dynamic targeting and optimum target discrimination, however this is being tested as they rely on human intelligence and can ultimately be subject to ‘faulty intelligence’. These consequences are detrimental and have led to the use of UAVs being wildly unpopular in specific groups of civilians, further made apparent by the 9% of Pakistanis supporting the CIA’s use of drones in Pakistani territory. An airstrike conducted by NATO in Afghanistan resulted in the deaths of between 70 and 125 innocent civilians who were falsely identified as ‘Taliban insurgents’. This has been an issue in Yemen where a wedding convoy was bombed, as well as a hospital in Afghanistan. This injustice for many innocent civilians displays the necessity of stricter protocols in regard to targeting with drones. Furthermore, the USA’s integrity has been questioned due to the inconsistency in civilian casualties within data published by the US compared to ‘The Long War Journal’. This discrepancy was explained by Mr. Obamas counter terrorism advisor, John O. Brennan, who explains that some casualties are not counted as civilian casualties because people in known areas of terrorist activity “are probably up to no good”. This attitude employed by the US highlights the lack of investigation into the targets of the drones who the US presume to be guilty unless proven innocent, going against the presumption of innocence. Moreover, this may be a reason for the accidental killing of two-dozen Pakistani soldiers, who were misidentified as extremist militants, or the strike of supposed PKK militants who were low-level criminals smuggling gasoline. Although there are comparatively fewer consequences than many alternative methods would have caused, the number of civilian deaths is higher than people think due to the US publications of causalities and this issue still exists majorly.

The process of attacking both terrorists, civilians and soldiers through the use of drones has been dehumanized arguably reducing the psychological and physical risk to the operators. This is due to the minimal exposure and low-risk nature, leaving critics to question the ethics behind killing someone by ‘manipulating a computer joystick’. The referral of their targets as ‘bugsplats’ and ‘squirters’ displays the ‘play station mentality’ that can be evident for some drone operators. Military operations are described as seemingly ‘less impactful’ due to the simplicity and accuracy of the process. Drone warfare enables operators to end multiple lives by simply pressing a button, dulling some of the implications that can be associated with assassination such as guilt and not having to watch that person die. The removal of the soldier from the battlefield significantly reduces the risk of harm to the drone operator, sitting somewhere in their own country, these ‘armchair’ soldiers face no physical risk of harm, further highlighting the game-like characteristics. This ‘riskless’ warfare undermines the reciprocal nature that we know as war, the traditional attacks between soldiers are somewhat morally justified due to mutual exposure of risks. Is it acceptable for someone to kill, but not be willing to die at the same time? However, some suggest these soldiers responsible for targeting terrorist groups are more likely to be accurate and pose less risk to civilians due to the ability to take their time, assured that they, personally, are facing no risk. This does not change the ‘defenceless’ nature of this new-age war being conducted. The ethical implications are further uncovered in a political sense, in the instance of the Pakistani government. Described as ‘dubious’, Obama’s drone program has uncovered that the Pakistani government both privately supports and publicly condemns the drone attacks.

One of the core principles of just war, jus in bello, refers to how the war should be fought and conducted in a just manner. In relation to drone warfare, there is concern surrounding the indiscriminate nature and disproportionality of drone strikes. Due to the need to discriminate legitimate targets from civilians by the military in order to abide to jus in bello, further care must be taken. As earlier mentioned, a number of killings of presumed terrorists have taken place when in fact these people are innocent, demonstrating the struggle of drone warfare to satisfy the condition of discrimination. In further satisfying jus in bello, proportionality must be satisfied, this requires that the harm caused not outweigh the tactical or strategic advantage gained through military force. Jus ad bellum refers when it is necessary to go to war. Concerns of if there is a ‘just cause’ to go to war surround drone warfare due to the argument of if drones can be used as a means of self-defense. Self-defense allows a state to be granted an exception from the prohibiting of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Whilst the US is obliged to safeguard their civilians from any threat, the extent of these drone attacks controversial in the extensive attacks of al-Qaeda and its associates. Although pre-emptive attacks are just, they are still guarded by jus ad bellum and must be proportional. Further, jus ad bellum implies that once the adversary can no longer inflict harm ‘deadly force’ must cease, similarly, ‘preventive aggression’ cannot be justified. Although the US have embraced drones as a means of targeting terrorist groups, specifically for the ‘War on Terror’, much controversy surrounds the legality of drones used to instigate targeted killings.

In summary, drone warfare and drone attacks are controversial primarily because of the questionable ethics surrounding both the process of killing people from an armchair as well as the way it aligns with the just war core principles, jus in bello and jus ad bellum. It is difficult to classify this warfare as meeting ‘proportionality’ and ‘discrimination’ as well as being difficult to justify as a means of ‘self-defense’. Further to this, the misleading civilian death statistics, originally published by the US have also led to controversy due to many more civilian deaths that these notoriously reliable have caused than previously thought. Although drone warfare is cheap and relatively effective, the ethical implications are extreme and involve individuals with no defense being faced with unpreventable destruction.

In this essay I will argue that the operation of drones should be ban in international law. Drones in their general definition are unmanned aerial vehicles operated by a pilot who may be thousands of miles away from where the drone is flying. Originally, drones were designed as reconnaissance aircraft or in other words an exploratory military survey of enemy territory. However, as years go by, drones became armed and thousands of civilian people. The United States has two types of combat drones in its arsenal or armaments: the MQ1 or Predator and the MQ9 or the Reaper. The Predators began as surveillance drones and adapted to carry two Hellfire missiles. The Reaper is specially designed as a launch vehicle that can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles and 500 pounds bombs. The United States having drone programs: one conducted by the US Air Force and the other by the Central Intelligence Agency or the CIA. The CIA is the first line of defense for the United States. The Predator missiles fired during the war in Afghanistan. Many US drones piloted by the Air Force, controversially, a large number flown by the CIA with regularly launches attacks, particularly in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. One of these strikes took place in Yemen in 2002, in which the laser-guided missile launched from a drone, destroying a car and causing the death of six people, including a suspected al-Qaeda lieutenant. Controversially, it has been argued that there was no armed conflict in Yemen at the time.

The right to resort to an armed conflict must be found in the law governing the resort to military force, the jus ad bellum. The way they are used must be based on international humanitarian law and human rights. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, generally prohibits the use of force, however, there are exceptions, including the resort of self-defense. Article 51 states, that nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. The ICJ has made clear that self-defense is a term of art in international law. The reference in article 51 to self-defense refers to the right of a victim-state to use significant offensive force in the territory of a state legally responsible for a significant armed attack. State Department Legal Advisor Koh gave a speech at the American Society of international Laws Annual meeting in March 2010. He stated that the US is responding to threatened attacks by individuals in these organizations, using force to preempt attacks under a theory of self-defense. The Self-Defense Act does not allow states to launch attacks before they have evidence that an armed attack took place, there is not enough evidence of a conspiracy. Furthermore, Legal Advisor said that the US is currently in the worldwide, armed conflict, therefore, it must be in the U.S. and Germany as much as Yemen and Pakistan. The Legal Advisor has said that decisions to use force would be based on the conditions and capacities of governments. International law, however, has no rule concerning the resort to military force in relation to the capacity of a government. There is no right to resort to armed force against weak states versus strong ones.

Furthermore, the ICJ has also said in several cases that two general principles of international law impose important conditions on the right to exercise force in self-defense. Those principles are distinction and proportionality, or the jus in bello, that governs the conduct of armed force, and aspects of human rights law that apply at all times regardless of whether situations are one’s armed conflict or not. In the principle of distinction, the main instrument for that protection is Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), June 8, 1977. The civilian population and individual civilians, according to this agreement, shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. The US administration has described its drone program in terms of its unprecedented ability to “distinguish effectively between an al-Qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians”, and touts its missile-armed drones as capable of conducting strikes with ‘astonishing’ and ‘surgical’ precision. They even added that “there have been no or single-digit civilian casualties”. However, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization, from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children and injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Also, proportionality for jus in bello requires tempering the extent and violence of warfare to minimize destruction and casualties (casualty means a person killed or injured in a war or accident). Mary Ellen O’Connell has summarized the idea by saying that most strikes are associated with one person’s name. Yet, every strike kills several persons. It is difficult to make the argument that killing 30, 12, or even six persons is proportional to the killing of one person. It is failing under the principle of proportionality.

Also, US drone strikes are subject to human rights law. Using drones against civilians constitute a war crime (war crimes is an action carried out during the conduct of a war that violates accepted international rules of war). According to Amnesty International, the US has killed civilians in unlawful drone attacks on northwest Pakistan, alleging that the Obama administration may be guilty of war crimes. Amnesty claims that many of those killed by the drone and accounted for by the US military as terrorists were in fact civilians. Additionally, US drone strikes are arbitrarily deprivation life that is stated in our covenant. Article 6 from International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) also known as ICCPR, is very specific about the right to life when it stated that “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”. According to Amnesty International, CIA drone campaign attacks against suspected terrorists in Pakistan violated the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of life and may constitute extrajudicial executions. The right to receive a fair trial is recognized in international humanitarian law. Article 75 (4) of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions stipulates that “No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offense related to the armed conflict except under a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure”. Killing by drone attacks is a willful killing which is, according to the terms used by the Fourth Geneva Convention under article 147, a grave breach of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, we must also consider the effects of the strikes on the civilian people. According to a report published by the Associated Press, “Afghans are increasingly fleeing their homes in fear” to escape relentless. Deportation or forcible transfer of population is considered a crime against humanity as stated in article 7 of the statute of the International Criminal Court. Additionally, David Rohde, who was held captive by the Taliban for eight months, stated: “The Taliban were able to garner recruits in their aftermath by exaggerating the number of civilian casualties”. Therefore, drone strikes create more terrorists. A Pakistani man stated: “When children hear the drones, they get really scared, and they can hear them all the time so they’re always fearful that the drone is going to attack them. Because of the noise, we’re psychologically disturbed: women, men, and children. Twenty-four hours, a person is in stress and there is a pain in his head”. Thus, it affects the civilian psychologically.

Finally, 28 countries banned drones for reasons that they can be used to harm other people and because of privacy threats. Also, drones have been the go-to method of smuggling drugs across the US-Mexico border due to the speed and altitude they can fly at. Thus, it has been used for illegal activities. Therefore, we conclude that drones should be ban in international law.

The inexorable change from the easy digitization being the Third Industrial Revolution to the technologically based development the Fourth Industrial Revolution forces businesses to re-examine their ways of achieving cost efficiency and accuracy. Transportation and communications will decrease as technological innovations will also lead to a supply chain that will bring about long-term effectiveness and productivity gains (Herweijer, 2017). Technologies underpinning the Fourth Industrial Revolution have a major impact on businesses as many businesses are seeing the implementation of new technologies that generate completely new methods to meet the current requirements and substantially interfere with the current value chains in the industry (Schwab, 2016).

Customer expectations have altered with the evolution of technology. Online shopping has gained momentum as people are now buying products via mobile devices and starting to connect business to customer. Increasing transparency, customer engagement and new consumer behavior trends (progressively constructed on access to mobile networks and information) encourage businesses to adapt market and offer products and services in their design and delivery. One thing that Amazon does very well is to move closer to its clients by concentrating on convenience achieved by not being quick but fitting the best timing for clients, achieving competitive advantage by knowing client expectations and by nearer you get to the customer the far more personalized and predictive experience can be.( Schwab, 2016)

The Transportation & Logistics industry has introduced innovation and technology at a much slower pace than other industries, but this is changing now. As the Fourth Industrial Revolution brings progress in areas such as Artificial Intelligent, Internet of Things, Big Data, Block chains, Robotics and Advanced materials some sectors reacted rapidly, while others were able to continue without radical change. Artificially aided drones, sensors and big data stimulations can modify these operations and enhance involvement with people by taking advantage of innovative ways to generate and use information. Taking advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution techniques could not only transform the daily operations, but also the logistics of shipment (Campbell, 2017)

Taking advantage of Fourth Industrial Revolution techniques could not only transform the daily commute, but also the logistics of delivery and efficiency. In combination with big data and low-tech solutions including mobile phones and GPS navigation systems, Internet of things and Artificial intelligence can automate traffic surveillance and communicate congestions on the roads resulting in improved traffic flows and management. Optimized route planning, decreased delivery time. A start up (Where Is My Transport) in Cape Town has already begun aggregating official and informal public transport information into an open platform assisting in quicker routes, responsiveness to consumers. Real-time pattern recognition and block chains technology can assist city prices and create incentives for transportation network businesses to deliver off-peak. (Slater, 2018)

Innovation and convergence in technology are driven by multiple stakeholders such as customer, with modifications in behavior playing a key role in technology adoption, IT firms such as Apple and Google engaging in autonomous vehicles, automotive manufacturers developing new car systems and governments encouraging technology adoption and adaptation.Technological advances have ledto the increase of electric vehicles, drones, additive manufacturing, independent cars and machinery and sensors working in real-time through ICT networks, allowing high price and time efficiencies. (Petje, 2019)

Rapid technological innovation and growth have led to severe factors regarding the sustainable motion of freighttransportation.With the capacity to travel 800 km between fees and integrate autonomous driving systems, Tesla’s all-electric semi-truck is likely to interrupt the commercial ICE trucking industry with real-world tests already underway in the United States(Mogg,2018).

The regulations stipulate that drones should be flown below from the ground and should not be permitted to float in close proximity to or above the crime scenes, prisons and police stations, courts of law and nuclear power plants or used to transport products and cargo (Wakefield, 2015). Drone techniques are capable of providing realtime footage, allowing respondents to respond and make timely choices.The Department of Transport and Public Works and the City of Cape Town enable the use of drone techniques to monitor rail tracks, thereby enhancing the safety and security of the system and the transportation system (Slater, 2018).

In the South African context, electric vehicles, drones, digitized and automated techniques have been introduced at rapid rates in latest years, along with modifications in commuter preferences.While the uptake of electric cars remains slow, techniques such as drones and sensors as well as automated and linked cars are integrated into the mobility of agricultural, industrial and freight, thus decreasing the need for standard cars and mobility machinery.

The expansion of international trade and modern technology has assisted organizations in the world in creation of large supply chains that has helped them in competing with their rival companies across the world. In the business world every detail can make a difference and when innovation is brought into operation it plays a crucial role in getting a competitive advantage over the rival companies. Because of the logistics, supply chain and distribution being a field that provides excellent results, new ideas are important if they are properly applied. Time is an important factor that can be utilized to achieve competitive advantage. Recently organizations have been looking for ways they can cut cost when delivering goods and also ensure that their customers are satisfied. This has been achieved by the proposal of drones in the delivery sector. Most companies are in need of delivery services because their clients might request for a product online and would like it be delivered in some few hours or even days. Once the delivery services are effective, most customers would prefer it because of their convenience. Many companies spend millions to equip their delivery department. The companies still face challenges in delivering the products in time since delivery by road transport is sometimes faced with a lot of challenges such as traffic jam or even the car could break down. So, after realizing such weakness in delivery services, I decided to consider using drone delivery in the UK.

As the world is embracing technology, drone delivery is one of the most reliable delivery systems. This is because it does not encounter any problems the normal delivery systems occur. It also has little manpower needed hence cutting down the cost of operation. Drones also conserve energy. As compared to other forms of delivery drone does not use fuel which later pollutes the environment. So, the proposed development of the drone delivery services is to have more drones with latest technology delivering products in virtual remote locations. There would be a control center to ensure that all services run smoothly.

SWOT Analysis

Strength

The main advantage of delivery through drones is reliability. Over the past few years, customers have been complaining of lack of reliability of the delivery services. The other advantage is the time used by the drones in delivering goods such as parcel. It is quick since they do not face any traffic jam or any obstacle. The speed they travel in cuts time.

Weakness

Current technology limits the ability to fly and carry drones. Because time is an unknown factor and the life of a drone battery is short, shipping may be subject to serious obstacles. In addition, the drone must land in a safe place, which is not always possible.

Opportunity

Drones are a new technology that can be enhanced in many ways. Working with suppliers and developers of this technology offers the opportunity to enter a market that seems to be at the beginning of a remarkable expansion. This technology can quickly become a domestic and even international means of transportation, and the company can greatly benefit from its understanding of this technology.

Threats

Current and future legislation is one of the main obstacles to the continued implementation of drone traffic. UAVs used to transport small packages of commercial products may also be used to transport hazardous materials, so their use may be considered a threat to the state or society and therefore prohibited or restricted by the government. In addition, the risk of vandalism against drones or theft of the product you carry can be difficult and costly to overcome, and the possible escape from a private consultation that may follow a flight can lead to unpredictable complications. Finally, in this section, you can list the lack of experienced drone use and maintenance personnel, which makes replacement difficult if necessary.

Conclusion

These are some of the many comments anyone can make about the use of drones by logistics companies for product delivery. In this case, its use can only be limited to areas of the distribution center, which are usually large foreign trade companies and therefore far from potential customers. From a financial standpoint, managing and maintaining drones’ costs less than the initial investment to buy, which makes them interesting. As with all innovative solutions, the use of drones has several positive and negative characteristics and is surrounded by speculation. Only the final implementation can demonstrate the real benefits of its use and demonstrate its feasibility.