Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

In the summer of 2024, the first reports of “Dragon drones” in the Ukraine War was covered on social media. Videos were showing the “Dragon Drones” spewing out molten metal flakes on the battlefield. Combing Thermite and drones has never been done in modern warfare before. This raises questions of what exactly these drones are and what they are capable of? But also, what can the observations from The War tell us, are they legal? And if so, why not?

The aim of this thesis is to investigate the use of Thermite UAS in the Ukraine War. The first question is based on whether Thermite UAS can be considered an incendiary weapon according to CCW Protocol III. Second, whether this weapon system can be considered Natural or Calculated in relation to superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering under Customary International Humanitarian Law.

The result has found that Thermite is not covered by CCW because the convention specifically excludes thermite against military objectives and combatants. But the same time Thermite is covered by CCW if the conduct is considered to cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. According to observations the result suggest that only military objectives have been targeted. A distinction from civilians and civilian objects has been made. The research also suggest that there is a gap between CCW and Customary International Humanitarian Law. The discourse on incendiary weapons and LAWS tends to fall in under the category of AI. The author argues that the answer to the gap between CCW and Customary International Humanitarian Law is found within the human responsibility of commanders and UAS operators. Depending on the assessment of military advantage gained from a Thermite strike it is important to balance the military necessity versus humanity in that specific military operation, due to the unique circumstances