We very much appreciate the fact that Neta Crawford, Janina Dill, and David Whetham have taken our proposal for a Drone Accountability Regime (DAR) seriously and have offered various critiques and suggestions in their responses to it. In the lead article to this symposium we took pains to emphasize that the details of our proposal are clearly contestable; that there is no guarantee of political feasibility; and, indeed, that it would be desirable to establish what we called an “experimentalist regime” to take into account the need to adapt to circumstances that are not now foreseeable. We are therefore pleased to see that our article initiated a lively discussion of the characteristics of a Drone Accountability Regime, and of the international political and legal context within which its provisions should be framed.
To read or purchase the full article, click here.
More in this issue
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Review
Accountability for Killing: Moral Responsibility for Collateral Damage in America’s Post-9/11 Wars by Neta C. Crawford
For Crawford, we ought not to regard instances in which civilians are mistakenly targeted or instances in which more civilians are killed collaterally than had ...
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Essay
Accountability for Targeted Drone Strikes Against Terrorists?
The problem of terrorism can and probably ought to be approached from both war and law enforcement paradigms, not merely the former one, as Buchanan ...

Spring 2015 (29.1) • Feature
Toward a Drone Accountability Regime
The key principle of a Drone Accountability Regime should be transparency, and its central agent should be an Ombudsperson with broad authority to investigate situations ...