REMOTE PILOTED MACHINES AND ACCRUAL LIABILITY ON UNLAWFUL TARGETING: DEPERSONALIZATION RATHER THAN REMOTENESS

The rapid integration of remote piloted machines (RPMs), particularly armed drones and autonomous or semi-autonomous weapon systems, into contemporary armed conflict has profoundly altered the modalities of targeting and the attribution of responsibility for unlawful harm. While much scholarly debate has focused on remoteness, the physical and geographical distance between the operator and the battlefield, this article argues that the more critical legal and ethical challenge lies in depersonalization of lethal decision-making. Depersonalization, rather than mere remoteness, facilitates cognitive distancing, diffusion of responsibility, and normalization of unlawful targeting practices, thereby complicating the accrual of individual and state liability under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL). Drawing on the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, the study interrogates how RPM-enabled warfare risks transforming human targets into abstract data points, algorithmic profiles, or pattern-of-life signatures. This process undermines the subjective and objective elements required to establish mens rea for war crimes, while simultaneously enabling institutional structures that obscure causal chains between decision, execution, and harm. The article examines the allocation of liability across multiple actors, including remote pilots, intelligence analysts, military commanders, software designers, and states, arguing that depersonalization increases the likelihood of responsibility gaps rather than absolving accountability. The article further contends that existing IHL and ICL frameworks are normatively sufficient but operationally strained by RPM-mediated depersonalization. It proposes a reconceptualization of accrual liability that emphasizes functional control, decision-making authority, and epistemic responsibility over physical proximity to the battlefield. By shifting analytical focus from remoteness to depersonalization, the article contributes to contemporary debates on accountability in technologically mediated warfare and advances a more coherent legal approach to unlawful targeting in the age of remote and autonomous military systems.