The future usage of armed UAVs

Study Guide PDF: Here
Doodle: Here

Introduction to the committee

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the main policy-making body of the UN. As all member states are part of this council and have an equal vote, it provides a unique setting for multilateral discussions on all of the various issues facing the international community. The  General Assembly meets in regular sessions from September to December every year. 

The First Committee deals with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that  affect the international community.

Introduction to the Topic

UAVs were originally developed through the 20th century for military missions too dangerous for humans. In the present day they have become essential assets to most militaries and even have expanded to many non-military applications. 

Definitions

UAVs: short for unmanned aerial vehicle, often referred to as drones, are a class of military aircrafts that can fly without the onboard presence of pilots and are controlled remotely.

The following classification of armed UAVs is in accordance with the NATO classification.

GCSs: UAV ground control station, a land- or sea-based control centre that provides facilities for human control of UAVs.

RPA: Remotely-piloted aircraft, UAVs that are remotely controlled by a human operator. RPAs are a subcategory of UAVs. UAVs are the umbrella term.

History

UAVs have been around for decades, in the late 1890s the founding father of unmanned  vehicles, Nikola Tesla was the first to patent a remotely controlled unmanned vehicle. In recent  years UAVs have become more complex and lethal. Modern drones of the US Navy were the  first to be developed after WW1. During WW2 the US Navy began deploying UAVs albeit they  were rather ineffective, as many crashed or exploded prematurely. The US military started to  invest more into UAVs after the Vietnam War, though the program was suspended later. 

The US once again became interested, when the Israeli Air force used an armed drone in  1982. The Navy purchased several such drones and money was invested into the research of  UVAs. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 impacted and accelerated the way UAVs were utilized. As  drones were now in demand to hunt down terrorists located in remote areas in Pakistan and  Afghanistan. 

In recent years the number of countries that own UAVs has increased rapidly. According to the Munich Security Report of 2019 in 2009 only 11 countries possessed heavy UAVs.2Whereas in 2019 this number increased to 30 countries in possession of heavy UAVs. In general there is the trend of increasing numbers to observe in all categories of UAVs.

Problem Area(s)

All new technology brings benefits on one hand and new challenges on the other. Armed UAVs undoubtedly bring new advantages: the use of armed drones allows for the remote delivery of lethal force, both inside and outside armed conflicts with little risk to the drone operator thus attacks can be launched without having to deploy one’s own forces. The downside to this may be that the use of armed drones may lower the threshold for states to engage in the use of force. There are some aspects that need urgent discussion such as the lack of transparency, the need for a common understanding of use and proliferation and compliance with international law.

Transparency

As for transparency there attempts have been made. For one there is the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA) which accounts for armed UAVs. However, it counts armed aerial vehicles independently of whether they are manned or unmanned. It is not clear how many armed UAVs a country has through that database. As well as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The ATT mainly uses a reporting system to fulfil the transparency standard. However, the problem is that not all countries submit their reports correctly or at all. According to the ATT Monitor only 35% of reports submitted were compliant with article 13.3. Additionally not all countries that have become major armed UAVs producers are part of the treaty.

Lack of Legal Framework

Member states which are leading armed UAVs producers not being part of major arms treaties is an issue that needs tackling. Aside from that there is also a lack of legal mechanisms to begin with. The following paragraph will introduce some of the existing frameworks regarding the topic of armed UAVs. 

Framework

As previously mentioned there are measures that have been undertaken by the UN regarding  the topic. The two measures that have been named so far are the United Nations Register for  Conventional Arms (UNROCA) and the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).  

The UNROCA4is a database in which all member states have to list their exports as well as  their imports of various classes of weapons. It invites all UN member states to annually  voluntarily provide a report about the export and import of weapons. The listing of export and  import is meant to be a control mechanism. However, not all reported transfers match as: not  all countries report every year, national interpretation may differ on which weapons come  under what category, some countries report the contract signing date, others the transfer date  leading to reporting in different years or a contract may contain more items than the number  actually shipped, e.g. because the weapon broke down as well as other reasons.5 

The ATT is an agreement that operates with increasing the transparency regarding armed  UAVs as well. It works similarly to the UNROCA. The ATT signatories have to provide a report  as well. Contrary to the UNROCA not all UN member states are part of the ATT. This proves  to be quite unfortunate as all the major armed UAV producers are not part of the ATT. 

There are other treaties relating to the proliferation of armed UAVs (and other weapons) such  as the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), the Missile Technology Control  Regime (MTCR) and the Wassenaar Agreement.  

The backdrop to all of these treaties and agreements is the international humanitarian law  (IHL) which in turn consists of several conventions.

Possible Solutions

Seeing that the measures in place as of now are not enough to cover the issues that arise with  armed UAVs in the following paragraphs some possible solutions will be presented. 

Peace and security between potential opponents can be supported by creating transparency.  Expanding existing transparency measures can counteract exaggerated perceptions of  security threats and the ensuing armament cycles. 

In order to improve UAVs usage transparency there should be public released reports containing the number and location of all drone strikes on an annual basis, as well as the number and location of combatant and noncombatant casualties resulting from such strikes.Additionally, to allow the increased oversight of exports and imports of UAVs as well as to uphold international human rights law and international humanitarian law there is to be continuous written assurances on the use from UAVs export recipients.

 

Questions a Resolution Must Answer (QARMAs )

●     What can be done to increase the transparency regarding the possession of armed UAVs of each member state?

○     Should existing transparency mechanisms be expanded? Universalised?

●     How should the proliferation of armed UAVs be handled?

○     Through limiting the number of armed UAVs a country can possess?

○     Through bans on certain types?

Country Suggestions

In no particular order:

USA
France
Russia
China
UK
Germany
Italy
Turkey
India
Iran
Canada
Israel
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Yemen

Bibliography / Sources

Previous
Previous

The Rehabilitation of Child Soldiers

Next
Next

Security in Afghanistan: new approaches for old challenges