It doesn’t make sense to say: there is a new weapon, ooh, we find it scary, it has to go! It’s just there. The question is now: under what conditions and circumstances is the deployment of these weapons legitimized?

“It doesn’t make sense to say: there is a new weapon, ooh, we find it scary, it has to go! It’s just there. The question is now: under what conditions and circumstances is the deployment of these weapons legitimized?”

The Netherlands’ Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans in NRC on 18 December 2012, on the deployment of drones in Afghanistan.

I am not a lawyer or scholar of international law, but shouldn’t this be the other way around? First we study a new weapon, then we legitimize it?

And in all fairness to the Minister, he is not fan of drones, and questions their ease of use. He is very candid about his position on drones in the article, condemns them even. But is also pragmatic about the debate: “You can be very pure and say: this is not allowed, and this shouldn’t happen, but that doesn’t get rid of of terrorism.”

The question remains: should the use of drones not be scrutinized before they are actually deployed?