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) • 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 ...
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Essay
The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War
How does the proposed drone accountability regime relate to existing international treaty and customary law governing the use of force, including the use of lethal ...
Spring 2015 (29.1) • Feature
Distant Intimacy: Space, Drones, and Just War
Critical engagement with the concept of space, rooted in political geography, augments established ethical critiques of drone strikes. As drone use grows, it is crucial ...