{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027123483226266953, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007851534618129907, 'mean_word_length': 5.343891402714932, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the responsible use of armed drones: the prospective moral responsibilities of states

ABSTRACT In 2016 the United States and 44 other countries issued a Joint Declaration for the Export and Subsequent Use of Armed or Strike-Enabled Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). This arms control agreement, the first to focus specifically on drones, includes a commitment to discuss how these are ‘used responsibly’ by states. However, the exact meaning of responsible use in this context remains uncertain. This article addresses the uncertainty by raising important questions for policymakers: regarding the use of armed drones, to whom does a state have a responsibility? What is the moral basis for that responsibility? What purpose is a state therefore responsible for pursuing? And what could it mean in practice for a state to take prospective moral responsibility for preventing injustice? These questions are discussed by reference to five objects of responsibility that a state committed to using armed drones responsibly should consider: (1) other states; (2) its own citizens; (3) the intended victims of drone use; (4) the unintended victims of drone use; and (5) its military personnel (including drone operators). The intention is to provide a structure according to which policymakers could better understand the meaning of responsible drone use and thereby improve drone-specific arms control.