Jus In Bello Dalam Serangan Drone Amerika Serikat Ke Pakistan 2004-2013, Berdasarkan Teori Just War Michael Walzer

Drones or unmanned aircraft is product of the modern technology that allows wars to be done in the far distance. The use of drones by the U.S. capable of replacing human functions in the battlefield. Drone regarded as a killing machine on the battlefield. Ethical issues arise because using drones is considered inhumane, asymmetry condition exist between humans and machines in battlefield. Ethics developments during this period has grown and can no longer be balanced on the ethical debate centuries ago, so to balance the discussion between ethical considerations and theory, just war theory that used in this study comes from Michael Walzer. Assessing the war as a just action in jus in bello depend on criteria NonCombantant Immunity, Proportionality, and Double Effect. Civilian frequent being target of the drone attack, proves that the drones failed to protect civilian from the dangers of war. The superiority of drone compared to it’s own risk on the battlefield, making war more like a massacre than a battle. Jus in bello requires that both parties receive same risk in the battlefield, drone fail to met those criteria, the use of machine minimizes the risk of war on the U.S. side. In the end drone war failed to meet the criteria of jus in bello, so can be considered as unjust actions