Introduction Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have developed as a major source of debate in international humanitarian law. Discussions have centered on the legality of their usage, ranging from disputes over the disparate reporting of death tolls to drone strikes, the legality of the targeting criteria behind drone strikes, jus in bello concerns regarding the use of drones, and concerns relating to the conduct of drone strikes by non-military government agencies. Through jus in bello principles, this paper outlines the controversy of drone strikes through international humanitarian law of distinction and proportionality. This paper also answers the question of targeting of civilians and civilians property and/ or if the target should be a “necessary” action to destroy that target and what threat is at the level to take that action. Jus in Bello The jus in bello, or international humanitarian law, applies only in the event of an armed conflict, whether international or non-international. When actions are not to this level, applicable domestic and human rights will govern them. There are two major legal barriers that stand in the way of the use of drone strikes. First, the extraterritorial application of human rights is a matter of some controversy. Generally, they are viewed as valid only to areas under the control of a state conducting the operation in question, with some states, such as the United States and Israel, more broadly denying their effect in the process. Second, it is uncertain whether transnational terrorism without any connection to an ongoing conflict starts and ‘‘armed conflict’’ as a matter of law, even when it is of sufficient force to then rise to that type of level. One thought argues that it does not and is instead merely highly violent criminality. A second suggests that terrorism should be treated as an international armed conflict. Finally, the opinion that these activities are non-international armed conflict seems to gradually be the ideal act of caution. The United States has adopted in this stance. If conducted during an armed conflict, cross border military operations, regardless of the forces engaged, must side with international humanitarian law. Major disapproval has been leveled against the legality of drone strikes under international humanitarian law. Such charges evidence unfortunate misapprehension as to the operational aspects of the strikes and the law that applies to them. Some of the controversy surrounds that the drones are piloted from a ground station that may be based thousands of miles away and that the attacks are conducted using video