ABSTRACT

Scholars often reduce America's use of drones to a bureaucratic process. While this enables them to recognise shifts in America's use of strikes since 2002, they cannot adequately explain such change over time. Rather, I argue that America's use of strikes is a function of presidents' decisions. Presidents adopt strategic and legal-normative cognitive frames that shape their decisions to use strikes. I use this typology to study crucial and pathway cases during the Obama and Trump administrations. I show that presidents' decisions to use drones are made to achieve state and social goals. The balance between these aims is informed by, and constitutive of, presidents' strategic and legal-normative frames. Understanding America's use of drones as a leader-driven practice suggests that the legitimacy of strikes may relate more to their impact on the relationship between norms and interests, and not the military or political nature of targets, as some ethicists claim.

摘要

学者们经常将美国对无人机的使用归结为官僚程序。虽然这使他们能够认识到自 2002 年以来美国使用罢工的变化，但他们无法充分解释这种随时间的变化。相反，我认为美国使用罢工是总统决策的一个功能。总统采用战略和法律规范的认知框架来塑造他们使用罢工的决定。我使用这种类型学来研究奥巴马和特朗普政府期间的关键和路径案例。我表明总统使用无人机的决定是为了实现国家和社会目标。这些目标之间的平衡是由总统的战略和法律规范框架构成的。了解美国将无人机用作领导者驱动的做法表明，罢工的合法性可能更多地与它们对规范和利益之间关系的影响有关，而不是像一些伦理学家声称的那样，与目标的军事或政治性质有关。