Transparency and accountability have emerged as central pillars in the debate over military drone operations in Europe, shaping both public trust and adherence to the rule of law. These concepts, while closely related, are distinct: transparency involves providing access to information, whereas accountability ensures that actors are answerable for their actions and face consequences for wrongdoing. As Jessica Dorsey observed in 2017, “Transparency merely ‘links access to information with accountability and oversight – in short, the existence of checks and balances on power.’”
Calls for greater transparency encompass not only the specifics of where, when, and how drones are deployed, but also the legal frameworks enabling their use. Under international human rights law, transparency is vital for identifying violations of fundamental rights such as the right to life. In international humanitarian law (IHL), legitimacy increasingly hinges on compliance during the conduct of war, as Laurie Blank noted: “In recent years, legitimacy’s central issue has morphed from the justification for the use of force to the measure of international law compliance in the conduct of war.”
The European Union could play a role in fostering transparency by promoting guiding principles and best practices rather than mandating rigid legal frameworks, given political sensitivities around defense readiness. Governments are encouraged to share data on civilian casualties, including age, identity, and affiliation of targets, when possible. Dialogue between states and civil society organizations—especially those producing differing casualty statistics—can help refine accuracy and trust.
For the international community, transparency strengthens legitimacy and democratic governance, particularly in operations outside recognized armed conflicts. States benefit through enhanced mutual confidence, prevention of unlawful drone use, and improved civilian protection. The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs in 2015 emphasized that transparency supports peace, security, and adherence to export controls.
Militaries gain operational advantages from transparency, such as evaluating tactics, fostering trust in international relations, and controlling narratives. Timely release of post-strike data can counter misinformation and bolster public confidence. Transparency also supports the psychological well-being of operators. A Dutch pilot involved in a 2015 Mosul airstrike that killed four civilians was prohibited from speaking about the incident, limiting his ability to process its effects. Drone operators, often observing targets for extended periods, may experience heightened emotional impact; studies have found up to 75 percent report grief, remorse, or sadness lasting a month or more.
Challenges arise when national security is cited to restrict information. While operational secrecy is sometimes necessary, the Tshwane Principles offer guidance to ensure such restrictions are proportionate and do not block access to non-sensitive legal and policy frameworks.
Accountability complements transparency by ensuring violations are investigated and addressed. Christof Heyns, then UN Special Rapporteur, stated: “A failure to investigate and, where applicable, punish those responsible for violations of the right to life in itself constitutes a violation of that right.” IHL obliges states to investigate alleged breaches, with provisions in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I detailing responsibilities, including compensation for victims.
For the international community, accountability reinforces legality and legitimacy. Deidre Curtin and André Nollkaemper describe it as “an instrument to secure control of public power,” while Robert Keohane noted, “Properly applied, it can be a useful tool to limit abuses of power.” States in coalitions build trust by demonstrating commitment to the rule of law, which also bolsters domestic public confidence.
Militaries benefit internally by identifying and correcting operational failures, integrating best practices, and maintaining morale. Song Tianying highlighted that accountability strengthens legitimacy, offers military advantages, and fosters reciprocal respect between opposing forces. Roberta Arnold warned that misconduct can erode both local and domestic support for operations.
The interplay of legality, transparency, and accountability determines the perceived legitimacy of drone operations. Larry Lewis and Diane Vavrichek emphasized that democratic legitimacy—rooted in these three factors—is essential for sustaining missions and alliances. When balanced, these elements reinforce the rule of law and uphold a robust system of international security.