A/HRC/28/38 emphasized that non-armed drones were widely and effectively used for peaceful purposes, for example in disaster relief, while others noted their effective use in countering terrorism, in particular in the areas of intelligence and reconnaissance. Some suggested that the surveillance capabilities of drones in an armed conflict could help to improve overall situational awareness before an attack, thereby reducing the risk of casualties resulting from an attack. 34. Some delegations recalled that armed drones were not illegal and that their use, like any other weapon, must comply with long-standing rules of international law. In the case of the use of armed drones, reference was made to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations, noting that, except where the use of force takes place with the express consent of the State on whose territory force is employed, in strict accordance with a Security Council resolution based on Chapter VII of the Charter, or in a legitimate act of self-defence against an armed attack, the use of force on the territory of a third State may amount to an act of aggression. Other delegations raised ethical questions regarding the use of armed drones and some raised doubts as to the ability to use them in compliance with international law, with particular concerns relating to the ability to comply with the principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality. Some referred to the involvement of the intelligence agencies in their use and the remoteness of the operator from the battlefield as factors hindering proper accountability. Some delegations called for their use to be regulated at the international level and one delegation suggested that a moratorium be placed on the use of new forms of warfare until issues of the legality of their use had been clarified under international law. Delegations also referred to concerns related to the acquisition or development of armed drones by non-State actors, which would create a serious threat to international peace, security and human rights. 35. In response to delegations’ comments, the Senior Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights noted that there were legal and ethical questions linked to the use of armed drones, as well as the impact that the weapons technology might have on human rights. Concerns over the “individualization” of warfare (through the targeting of specific individuals); de-sensitization to the use of force, owing to the remoteness of the drone operator; and sharpened asymmetry between State and non-State actors, were also raised. Ms. Kebraiei suggested that there was a risk that claims of enhanced precision targeting provided by drones might be understood as equivalent to claims of enhanced legality provided by the use of drones, as opposed to other weapons, in the use of force. There were also concerns that the use of armed drones might lead to a lowering of the threshold for the use of force. Finally, she highlighted the psychological impact of drones, both on affected communities and on the remote drone operators. B. International human rights framework 36. Many States reaffirmed the broad consensus that all measures adopted by States to counter terrorism must comply with international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law. That applied to the use of drones which needed to be in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, international human rights law and, in situations of armed conflict, international humanitarian law, in particular the principles of precaution, distinction, humanity and proportionality. Many speakers noted that the existing international legal framework constituted an adequate and sufficient framework to regulate the use of drones. Some States noted that there was a need to clarify international law obligations, with guidance on how they should be implemented by States in that context. One delegation noted that it was important to distinguish between principles that were desirable and those that followed from existing legal obligations. It was also stressed that the limitations imposed by international law on the use of lethal force must not be weakened by relaxing interpretations of international legal standards. One delegation noted 11