Experts Call for Updating War Rules to Address Drone Attacks on Civilians
Drones are increasingly being used to attack civilians in conflicts worldwide, including in Ukraine, Sudan, and Mexico. In Ukraine alone, small FPV drones have killed hundreds and injured thousands since 2022, with June 2026 seeing 89 deaths. The authors argue that existing international law is inadequate to address this growing threat and call for updates to the rules of war.
The proliferation of small, commercially available drones has fundamentally altered the landscape of modern conflict, placing lethal aerial capability in the hands of state militaries, insurgent groups, and criminal organizations alike. In Ukraine, FPV drones have become the leading cause of civilian deaths, while Sudan's civil war has seen both sides deploy a mix of inexpensive tactical drones and advanced military systems from foreign suppliers. Cartels in Mexico have adapted the technology for terror campaigns against Indigenous communities, and Colombia recorded thousands of weaponized drone attacks in a single year.
The same technology that enables these attacks also serves humanitarian purposes, as demonstrated by drone use in disaster response following the Nepal floods. This dual-use nature complicates any regulatory response, since the devices themselves are widely available, relatively cheap, and nearly impossible to ban outright. The authors argue that existing international humanitarian law, designed for an era of manned aircraft and conventional warfare, fails to adequately address the unique challenges posed by drone warfare against civilian populations.
The growing use of drones against civilians could reshape how international law is applied and enforced in coming years, potentially affecting humanitarian organizations, aid workers, and civilian populations in active conflict zones. If legal frameworks remain unchanged, vulnerable groups—including Indigenous communities and urban civilians—may face escalating risk from weaponized consumer technology. Conversely, updated rules could establish clearer accountability standards for both state and non-state actors, though enforcement would likely prove challenging given the technology's accessibility and the difficulty of attributing attacks.