The Politics of Drone Armament: A Content Analysis of Political Views on the Weaponisation of Military Drones in Belgium and the Netherlands

By Robbe Du Pont

Promoted by Prof. Dr. Tim Haesebrouck

[September 2025]

While their military-strategic value is clear, armed drones continue to raise ethical and legal concerns and remain a topic of debate. This study examines how political parties in Belgium and the Netherlands position themselves in this debate and how they substantiate their views. Through qualitative content analysis, it explores to what extent ideological left-right alignment influences party positions. The findings suggest that ideology plays a role, but the absence of a clear left-right divide indicates it is not decisive. The study therefore proposes that other factors, such as government participation or international conflict, may significantly shape party positions on armed drones.

PDF download

Introduction

The use of drones in military contexts is by no means a recent development. As early as the First World War, initial attempts were made to create unmanned aerial vehicles (Kanat, 2023; Palik & Nagy, 2019). Since then, drone technology has undergone significant evolution, with their functions and applications expanding continuously over time. One of the most important milestones in this process occurred during the Gulf War at the end of the 20th century, when drones were equipped with arms for the first time (Keane & Carr, 2013).

Since the emergence of armed drones, their use has increased considerably, and the technology has spread widely among military actors worldwide (Criollo, Mena-Arciniega, & Xing, 2024). Today, armed drones have become instruments of significant strategic and military importance (Kanat, 2023). This has become evident in recent conflicts such as the wars in Nagorno-Karabakh and Ukraine, where these systems have demonstrated their value on the battlefield (Dixon, 2020; Hambling, 2020; Kunertova, 2023; Molloy, 2024; Rickli & Mantellassi, 2024). That said, their rapid development and spread have simultaneously sparked growing concern among academics and policymakers regarding the ethical and legal implications of their use (Horowitz, 2020). As a result, armed drones remain a subject of controversy in both academic and policy debates.

This paper focuses on the political debate surrounding the armament of drones in Belgium (between 2014 and 2025) and the Netherlands (between 2012 and 2025). The central research question is: ‘What are the policy positions of political parties in Belgium and the Netherlands regarding drone armament, and how do they substantiate them?’ Specifically, this study examines to what extent parties’ ideological orientation on the left–right spectrum influences (1) their stance on armed drones, and (2) the arguments they employ to support that stance. In other words, it explores whether left-wing and right-wing parties adopt fundamentally different positions and use different lines of reasoning in debates about drone armament.

This article aims to address a notable gap in the existing academic literature. On the one hand, substantial research has been done on the relationship between political ideology and party positions on defence issues, such as military interventions (Haesebrouck & Mello, 2020; Noël & Thérien, 2018; Rathbun, 2004; Wagner, 2020). On the other hand, literature about military innovations such as armed drones is also widely available (Criollo et al., 2024; Kanat, 2023; Keane & Carr, 2013; Palik & Nagy, 2019). What remains lacking, however, is research that links these two areas. This is exactly what this study aims to do: to systematically examine the relationship between political ideology and party positions on the military innovation of armed drones.

The use of armed military drones

Armed drones have been a subject of debate for several decades. At the heart of these debates lies a fundamental tension between the military-strategic advantages of armed drones and the ethical and legal concerns they raise. Before examining both sides of this debate, it is important to clarify a key distinction: the difference between automatic and autonomous armed drones. The primary distinction between these systems concerns the level of human involvement in their deployment. With automatic systems, human operators retain control over key decision-making processes at all times (Hastings Dunn & Wheeler, 2023). Autonomous systems, by contrast, are capable of independently identifying and attacking targets without human intervention (Konert & Balcerzak, 2021). This distinction is relevant for the scope of the study, as the political debate about the acquisition of armed drones in Belgium and the Netherlands has, so far, focused exclusively on automatic systems. All considerations regarding autonomous drones are therefore excluded from the analysis, not least because these systems give rise to far more complex ethical and legal questions, such as the moral justification of lethal force in the absence of human oversight (Dewyn, 2019).

Military-Strategic Advantages

From a military-strategic perspective, armed drones offer several clear advantages. Firstly, they enable highly precise targeting capabilities (Dewyn, 2019; Horowitz, 2020; Konert & Balcerzak, 2021). This is not only due to their advanced technological features, such as high-resolution cameras and extremely precise missiles, but also due to the fact that they are remotely piloted. Because drone operators are located far from the battlefield, in secure environments, they are less exposed to stress and danger and are therefore believed to perform their tasks more accurately and with fewer errors (Dewyn, 2019). This high level of precision reduces the risk of collateral damage compared to conventional airstrikes.

Secondly, armed drones are highly cost-effective. They can deliver results comparable to - or in some cases even exceeding - those of manned fighter aircraft, but at a fraction of the cost (Mahadevan, 2010). McLean (2014) illustrates this by comparing the acquisition and operational costs of the MQ-9 Reaper drone and the F-35 fighter jet. His research reveals that the acquisition cost of a Reaper is over twelve times lower than that of an F-35, and that its operational costs are only one-fifth as high. 

Thirdly, armed drones also contribute significantly to reducing the risk of friendly casualties on the battlefield in two ways. On the one hand, drone operators are not present in a cockpit, which eliminates any potential physical risk for them (Dewyn, 2019; Horowitz, Kreps, & Fuhrmann, 2016; Sullivan, 2006). On the other hand, armed drones enhance the protection of friendly ground troops by providing real-time intelligence and by being able to rapidly neutralise imminent threats (Mahadevan, 2010).

Armed drones are also highly flexible assets, especially when compared to traditional fighter aircraft. Their ability to remain airborne for extended periods, combined with their agility, allows them to carry out a wide range of operations and to quickly adapt to changing tactical conditions (Criollo et al., 2024; Horowitz et al., 2016).

Finally, the acquisition of armed drones can be seen as a geopolitical necessity nowadays. These systems have become a standard feature of modern warfare. Given their military-strategic advantages, opting for drone armament has virtually become a necessity in light of today’s increasingly unstable geopolitical landscape. In order to guarantee national security in the long run, it is essential to have an army that has the capabilities to meet modern standards of warfare (Modebadze, 2021).

Ethical and Legal Concerns

Besides their military-strategic advantages, armed drones raise a number of ethical and legal concerns. Firstly, the physical distance between the drone operator and the battlefield may lower the threshold for the use of force. On the one hand, this distance can lead to the emergence of a “video game mentality”, where operators become emotionally detached from their actions and experience less guilt over killing targets, destroying infrastructure, or even causing civilian casualties (Dewyn, 2019; Kuo & Warford, 2013). On the other hand, the remoteness can also produce overcompensatory behaviour. When soldiers on the battlefield are in immediate danger and their survival depends on the operator’s decision, they may experience intense pressure, potentially leading to an excessively protective or disproportionate response (Dewyn, 2019).

Secondly, some scholars fear that armed drones might be a ‘too easily deployable’ weapon of war. Given their strategic advantages, political and military leaders may be more inclined to resort to drone strikes even when they are not the most proportionate or appropriate course of action (Horowitz, 2020). As such, drones may be viewed and used as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution, which can result in misuse or overuse in situations where alternative approaches would be more suitable (Pelopidas & Renic, 2024).

A third area of concern relates to the legal framework governing the use of armed drones. At present, there is no specific international legal framework that regulates the use of armed drones. In the absence of such a framework, existing legal instruments (e.g. international humanitarian law) are applied to drone operations (Jomier, 2021). However, these instruments were not designed with armed drone technology in mind and are therefore only partially equipped to regulate its use effectively. This results in the existence of a legal “grey zone”, in which states and actors rely on broad or flexible interpretations of existing norms to justify their actions (Horowitz, 2020; Jomier, 2021).

Fourthly, the deployment of armed drones raises questions about accountability, particularly in cases of unintended consequences such as civilian casualties. While responsibility is often attributed to the drone operator, this is a simplistic view, as operators typically act under the orders of superior officers (Sullivan, 2006). Research shows that these higher-level decision-makers often invoke what Pelopidas and Renic (2024) describe as a “tragedy discourse” where foreseeable negative outcomes of drone strikes are framed as unavoidable accidents. In doing so, they seek to deflect accountability and downplay their own role in authorising such operations.

Finally, discussions about armed drones are frequently muddled by conceptual confusion, especially concerning the issue of human control. Many actors struggle to clearly distinguish between automatic and autonomous systems (Konert & Balcerzak, 2021). While the key distinction lies in the presence or absence of human involvement, some distinguish these systems based on their level of technological complexity instead. This conceptual ambiguity can lead to the inappropriate use of arguments about a lack of human control in debates about automatic systems, where such concerns may not be justified.

The relationship between ideological party positioning and attitudes towards defence issues

This paper aims to be the first to explore the relationship between ideological party positioning and the attitudes of parties towards military innovations such as armed drones. Given the absence of prior research in this specific area, this analysis draws upon existing literature that examines the extent to which the left-right positioning of parties determines their stances on broader defence-related issues. The insights from these studies form the theoretical basis for formulating hypotheses for the empirical research.

Existing studies have shown that the ideological positioning of parties along the left-right dimension clearly influences their positions on defence issues. For example, research by Noël and Thérien (2018) shows that since their inception in the context of the French Revolution, both ideological movements have had very different views on what the world order should look like and what the role of military force should be in it. While left-wing parties mainly believe in ideas of equality between states, mutual cooperation, and peace, right-wing parties tend to emphasise a stable world order led and protected by the most militarily powerful states.

Various other studies prove that this contrast between left-wing and right-wing political parties is still visible today. For example, a study by Klingemann, Budge and Hofferbert (1994) shows that right-wing parties generally adopt a more pro-defence stance, while left-wing parties tend to be more peace-oriented and critical of military involvement (cited in Wagner, Herranz-Surrallés, Kaarbo, & Ostermann, 2017). More recent research by Pennings (2018) supports this finding. In his analysis of party positions since the Second World War, he concludes that right-wing parties have always been more consistently pro-defence than left-wing parties during this period. In light of these findings, Wagner et al. (2017) describe left-wing parties as dovish or more restrained and peace-seeking in defence matters and right-wing parties as hawkish or more inclined to develop military power to safeguard national security.

There is also other research that acknowledges the influence of ideological party positioning, but suggest the relationship may be more nuanced. Wagner et al. (2017) and Haesebrouck and Mello (2020), for instance, demonstrate that support for military interventions follows a curvilinear pattern across the ideological spectrum. While right-wing parties are generally more supportive of such interventions than left-wing parties, the highest levels of support tend to come from centrist parties. The most sceptical voices are typically found on the far left, but interestingly, a degree of scepticism is also present at the far right. In other words, support for military interventions appears to decline at both extremes of the political spectrum.

Overall, the literature confirms that ideological orientation is a key determinant of party positions on defence issues. However, it is important to note that party stances can also shift due to factors other than ideology. In this regard, Wagner and Raunio (2020) observe that attitudes towards defence issues can evolve under the influence of exogenous events such as the outbreak of an international conflict or participation in government. Therefore, in analysing party positions, this study should also consider the broader political and international context in which parties determine their positions.

Research design and methodology

Research question and hypotheses

Using qualitative content analysis, this paper aims to answer the central research question: ‘What are the policy positions of political parties in Belgium and the Netherlands regarding drone armament, and how do they substantiate them?’ This overarching question is further divided into two sub-aspects, each with a corresponding hypothesis.

In the first phase of the study, the focus is on identifying whether political parties in Belgium and the Netherlands adopt a supportive or opposing stance towards the arming of drones. Drawing on the theoretical insights discussed in the previous section, the following hypothesis is proposed:

• H1: Right-wing parties are predominantly supportive of armed military drones, while left-wing parties are predominantly opposed to them.

In the second phase, the analysis turns to the arguments that parties use to substantiate their respective positions. The corresponding hypothesis is as follows:

• H2: Right-wing parties primarily base their arguments on the military-strategic advantages of armed drones, whereas left-wing parties focus on their ethical and legal implications.

This second hypothesis can be logically derived from the first. From a military-strategic point of view, the literature only outlines advantages of drone armament. It would therefore be logical for right-wing parties to rely primarily on these arguments, while left-wing parties are more likely to emphasise other arguments, such as ethical and legal ones. Furthermore, prior research has shown that left-wing parties are generally more attentive to moral sensitivities and place a stronger emphasis on legal certainty, particularly in the context of military interventions (Haesebrouck, Reykers, & Fonck, 2022).

Research Scope: Belgium and the Netherlands

This paper focuses on the positions and arguments of political parties in Belgium and the Netherlands. While practical considerations such as language familiarity and knowledge of the political systems played a role in selecting these countries, the choice is primarily grounded in the geo-military comparability of both. They are located in Western Europe, are NATO member states, and have relatively modest military forces. Moreover, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, both Belgium and the Netherlands have found themselves in a geopolitical environment that is unstable and threatening, albeit to a lesser extent than countries that are geographically closer to Russia. In such countries, the threat is perceived as much more imminent, often resulting in a “rally around the flag” effect, whereby an increased sense of nationality as a result of the threat leads to an increase in public support for political leadership and the decisions taken in response to the threat, as well as to the transcending of party-political differences on defence issues (Mitchell, Bohman, Eger, & Hjerm, 2024). However, given the geographical location of Belgium and the Netherlands, the Russian threat is perceived as less imminent in these countries. This creates a context in which there is momentum for broad defence discussions, without the threat leading to an erosion of party-political differences. The comparability of the geo-military context is therefore highly relevant for this study, as it may also be a significant factor in political discussions about armed drones.

Regarding party selection, with a few exceptions, this paper includes all political parties that have held seats in the respective national parliaments since the legislative period during which weaponisable drones were first acquired. That moment can be seen as the logical starting point for discussions on drone armament, as this was not a concrete option before. In Belgium, this includes three legislative terms: 2014–2019, 2019–2024, and 2024–present. In the Netherlands, four terms are covered: 2012–2017, 2017–2021, 2021–2023, and 2023–present. Figure 1 shows which parties were included in the study, ranked on a left-right axis using the EU Political Barometer classification, which assigns parties a score ranging from 0 (far left) to 10 (far right) based on social media data (UC3M, n.d.).

In the case of Belgium, two parties were excluded from the analysis despite having obtained parliamentary seats at some point since 2014. First, the French-speaking right-liberal Parti Populaire was excluded because of its limited electoral weight and its formal dissolution in 2019 (Boutsen, 2019). Second, the French-speaking social-liberal party DéFi was also excluded, because of its limited electoral relevance as well as its predominant focus on community issues (Défi, n.d.).

Unlike the Belgian system, there is no electoral threshold in the Netherlands, making it easier for smaller parties to obtain a seat in parliament. In order to keep the study practically feasible, a fictitious electoral threshold of 5% (the same as in Belgium) was applied to exclude these smaller parties from the study. In addition, there is one party that did exceed this electoral threshold but was not included, namely the New Social Contract party. The reason for their exclusion is that they were only founded in 2023 and have therefore not participated actively in the political debate on drone armament (Omtzigt, 2023).

Data collection

During the data collection process, the objective was to gather as many relevant texts as possible from which the positions and argumentation of political parties regarding drone weaponisation could be derived. The initial focus was placed on parliamentary documents, as parliaments are the primary arenas where party representatives articulate and justify their positions on a wide range of issues. Accordingly, the official websites of the respective national parliaments were searched for debate transcripts, resolutions, motions, and other relevant records related to discussions on drone armament within the defined research period.

In addition to parliamentary sources, additional web sources were used for information on the parties' positions and arguments on armed drones. First and foremost, the official websites of parties and party programmes were systematically analysed for relevant information. In addition, online articles, interviews, social media posts and other public statements by political parties and their representatives on drone armament were also used.

Data analysis

Following data collection, the relevant text fragments were coded deductively. For the first sub-aspect, concerning the position of the parties, relevant fragments were marked with the code “pro” or “contra”, depending on the stance taken with regard to armed drones. For the second sub-aspect, which focuses on the arguments used to substantiate these positions, the coding was based on the main arguments cited in academic debates on drone armament (precision, cost-effectiveness, lowering the threshold for the use of force, risk of a one-size-fits-all approach, etc.). Each argument cited by a party was matched to one of ten pre-identified argument categories and coded accordingly.

After the coding process, an interview was also conducted with a European defence expert. The purpose of this interview was to reflect on the researcher’s own interpretations of the analysed data. Such reflexivity is essential in qualitative research, as researchers do not operate in a vacuum and personal assumptions and beliefs could potentially influence the analytical process (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Results

Positioning of the political parties

The first part of this study examined whether left- and right-wing political parties adopt fundamentally different positions on the issue of armed drones. The hypothesis was that right-wing parties are predominantly supportive of armed drones, while left-wing parties are predominantly opposed to them. However, based on the research findings, this hypothesis is not confirmed.

With regard to the positions of Dutch political parties, the hypothesis would appear to hold true if one considers only the stances taken in the past. Until a few years ago, a clear ideological divide along the left-right spectrum could be observed: all left-wing parties (SP, GroenLinks–PvdA, and D66) tended to express opposition to armed drones, while all right-wing parties (CDA, VVD, and PVV) adopted a more supportive stance. However, when examining the parties’ current positions, this left–right divide is no longer clearly present. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the centre-left party D66 has shifted toward an explicitly supportive stance on drone armament.

In the Belgian context, the hypothesis is also not confirmed, neither when analysing past positions nor current ones. Around 2022, it was the (centre-)right parties CD&V, MR, and Open VLD that took a rather critical stance, opposing a parliamentary resolution in favour of arming drones. Although these parties have since shifted towards an explicitly supportive position, the left-wing party Vooruit has undergone a similar evolution. As a result, no clear or consistent left-right divide can currently be observed in Belgian party positions on the issue of armed drones.

Substantiation of the positions

The second part of this study examined whether left- and right-wing parties also differ fundamentally in the types of arguments they use to substantiate their positions. The hypothesis here was that right-wing parties primarily rely on military-strategic arguments, while left-wing parties focus more on the ethical and legal implications of armed drones. This hypothesis is also not confirmed by the empirical findings.

Although the analysis did show that left-wing parties generally refer more frequently to ethical and legal concerns and that right-wing parties more often highlight military-strategic advantages, no consistent left-right divide emerged in the arguments put forward by the political parties. Deviations were observed in both Belgium and the Netherlands:

1. The hypothesis is most clearly refuted by the arguments put forward by the left-wing parties Vooruit (BE) and D66 (NL). Following their change in position, Vooruit and D66 have shifted towards a strong emphasis on the military-strategic benefits of armed drones in substantiating their pro-drone armament positions.
2. There are other left-wing parties (e.g. PvdA (BE)) that try to reinforce their position by refuting military-strategic arguments. For example, PvdA argues, among other things, that it does not believe in improved protection of its own troops because of the vulnerability of armed drones to air defence systems. Conversely, some right-wing parties (e.g. CD&V (BE), N-VA (BE) and VVD (NL)) do the same with ethical and legal arguments. For instance, all these parties point to the fact that legal concerns about the use of armed drones are unfounded.
3. Finally, there are also left-wing parties that substantiate their position by approaching military-strategic arguments from a different angle, as well as right-wing parties that do the same with ethical-legal arguments. For example, the left-wing party SP (NL) argues that the strategic importance of armed drones should not be a reason to make hasty and uncontrolled decisions. Conversely, right-wing parties Vlaams Belang (BE) and N-VA (BE) argue that, from an ethical point of view, it would be irresponsible to allow military personnel to operate without armed drones today. Vlaams Belang also argues that armed drones contribute to better enforcement of international humanitarian law.

Potential explanatory factors for evolution in positions

The findings of this paper do not provide conclusive evidence that the ideological left-right positioning of political parties plays a decisive role in shaping their stance on the issue of armed drones. This opens the door for reflection on the potential influence of other factors, beyond ideology, on party positions regarding drone armament.

What alternative factors might explain party attitudes? As explained, Wagner and Raunio (2020) came to the conclusion that party positions on defence-related issues can evolve over time due to exogenous events, such as the outbreak of an international conflict or participation in government. These factors may also help explain the position shifts observed in this study, as the period in which party positions evolved was characterised by the outbreak of an international conflict (the war in Ukraine) as well as the formation of new government coalitions in Belgium and the Netherlands.

CD&V, MR and Open VLD

Although none of these mainstream right-wing parties ever explicitly positioned themselves as opponents of armed drones - and have, at their core, consistently leaned in favour - they nonetheless formally adopted a negative stance during the 2022 vote on a parliamentary resolution on drone armament. Upon closer reflection, this position can primarily be explained by the participation of these parties in the De Croo I government (2019–2024). Within this government, the left-wing coalition partners are said to have imposed a principled veto on drone weaponisation (Mahdi, 2024). The negative vote of CD&V, MR and Open VLD should therefore be understood primarily as resulting from coalition influence. The fact that all three parties began to openly profile themselves as supporters of armed drones towards the end of the legislative period further reinforces the suspicion that participation in government played a decisive role in these parties’ positioning on armed drones.

Vooruit

Between 2022 and 2025, mainstream left-wing Vooruit underwent a change in position, evolving from an outspoken opponent to a clear supporter of drone armament. Reflection shows that both the outbreak of war in Ukraine and Vooruit’s participation in the De Wever I government (current government since 2025) may help to explain this change.

On the one hand, the war in Ukraine has removed or at least reduced the taboo surrounding armed drones in many countries. In this respect, it is quite possible that Vooruit has genuinely repositioned itself after the outbreak of the conflict and that the military-strategic added value of armed drones is now considered to outweigh the ethical and legal concerns that prevailed in the past. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that Vooruit’s participation in the government has played a decisive role in the party’s change of course. Since early 2025, Vooruit, together with Les Engagés, CD&V, N-VA and MR, has been part of the De Wever I government. However, all these coalition partners had already positioned themselves as clear supporters of armed drones before the government was formed. Vooruit’s change of position may therefore reflect coalition pressure to align positions.

D66

Like Vooruit, centre-left party D66 has undergone a significant change in position. Until 2019, the party had always been very cautious about drone armament and, in some instances, even openly opposed to it. However, from 2022 onwards, the party began to explicitly position itself as a supporter of armed drones. As with Vooruit, both the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the party’s participation in the Rutte IV government (2022–2024) may offer insight into this change. However in contrast to Vooruit, reflection suggests that one factor appears to have played a more decisive role in D66’s repositioning, namely the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.

Upon initial reflection, the party’s shift may be attributed to coalition dynamics. D66 governed alongside VVD and CDA, two parties that had already publicly endorsed the acquisition of armed drones prior to the formation of the coalition. In that sense, the shift may have been driven by pressure to align with its governing partners. Upon further reflection, however, this explanation does not seem very plausible. Rather, it appears that the war in Ukraine was the primary driver behind the shift in D66’s position. As a strongly pro-European and internationally oriented party, D66 tends to place emphasis on conflicts that are ongoing in the world, which is precisely why the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine is more likely to have had a decisive influence on the party’s change of position on armed drones.

Conclusion

This study set out to answer the question: ‘What are the policy positions of political parties in Belgium and the Netherlands regarding drone armament, and how do they substantiate them?’ Specifically, it examined the extent to which the ideological left-right positioning of parties has a decisive influence on their positions and arguments in the debate on armed drones.

The results indicate that the ideological left-right positioning of parties does play a role to a certain extent. In general, right-wing parties tend to support drone armament and left-wing parties tend to oppose it. In line with this, right-wing parties also tend to refer more often to the military-strategic advantages of armed drones, while left-wing parties more often tend to refer to ethical and legal implications. However, no evidence was found that the ideological positioning of parties is all-determining regarding their attitudes towards armed drones. The results do not reveal a clear ideological divide in the positions and arguments of political parties. For example, the right-wing parties CD&V, MR, and Open VLD (BE) have in the past expressed opposition to armed drones, while the left-wing parties Vooruit (BE) and D66 (NL) are now outspoken advocates. Similarly, in terms of argumentation, some right-wing parties actively use ethical and legal arguments, just as some left-wing parties invoke military-strategic reasoning.

Given that ideological orientation did not emerge as a decisive factor, the findings suggest that party positions are likely influenced by additional factors. For example, government participation and the outbreak of an international conflict - particularly the war in Ukraine - were cited as alternative factors that may play an important role in shaping party positions on the issue of drone armament. However, more in-depth research is necessary to assess the explanatory value of these factors.

Bibliography

Boutsen, B. (2019, June 19). Franstalige Parti Populaire houdt op te bestaan. VRT NWS.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

Criollo, L., Mena-Arciniega, C., & Xing, S. (2024). Classification, military applications, and opportunities of unmanned aerial vehicles. Aviation, 28(2), 115–127.

Défi. (n.d.). Notre programme.

Dewyn, M. (2019). Beïnvloedt het gebruik van gewapende drones de kans op succes in de strijd tegen terrorisme? Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte, 111(1), 111–130.

Dixon, R. (2020, November 11). Azerbaijan’s drones owned the battlefield in Nagorno-Karabakh and showed the future of warfare. The Washington Post.

GroenLinks-PvdA. (2024, September 24). GroenLinks en PvdA presenteren actieplan ‘Samen vooruit!’.

Haesebrouck, T., & Mello, P. (2020). Patterns of political ideology and security policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(4), 565–586.

Haesebrouck, T., Reykers, Y., & Fonck, D. (2021). Party politics and military deployments: Explaining political consensus on Belgian military intervention. European Security, 31(1), 76–96.

Hambling, D. (2020, November 10). The ‘magic bullet’ drones behind Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenia. Forbes.

Hastings Dunn, D., & Wheeler, N. (2023). Drones, force and law. Cambridge University Press.

Horowitz, M. C. (2020). Do emerging military technologies matter for international politics? Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 385–400.

Horowitz, M. C., Kreps, S., & Fuhrmann, M. (2016). Separating fact from fiction in the debate over drone proliferation. International Security, 41(2), 7–42.

Jomier, S. (2021, June 8). Politieke, juridische en ethische vragen bij de inzet van militaire drones door EU-lidstaten. GRIP.

Kanat, Ö. (2023). The significance of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in strategic contexts. Anadolu Strateji Dergisi, 5(2), 75–87.

Keane, J. F., & Carr, S. (2013). A brief history of early unmanned aircraft. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 32(3), 558–571.

Klingemann, H.-D., Budge, I., & Hofferbert, R. (1994). Parties, policies, and democracy. Westview Press.

Konert, A., & Balcerzak, T. (2021). Military autonomous drones (UAVs)—From fantasy to reality: Legal and ethical implications. Transportation Research Procedia, 59, 292–299.

Kunertova, D. (2023). The war in Ukraine shows the game-changing effect of drones depends on the game. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 79(2), 95–102.

Kuo, I., & Warford, E. (2013, December 2). The ethical performance of drones.

Mahadevan, P. (2010). The military utility of drones. CSS Analyses in Security Policy, 78.

Mahdi, S. (2024, May 22). CD&V wil met bijkomende investeringen de veiligheid van ons land verzekeren.

McLean, W. (2014, June 26). Drones are cheap, soldiers are not: A cost-benefit analysis of war. The Conversation.

Mitchell, J., Bohman, A., Eger, M. A., & Hjerm, M. (2024). Rally around the flag? Explaining changes in Swedish public opinion toward NATO membership after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Acta Sociologica, 68(1), 30–40.

Modebadze, V. (2021). The importance of drones in modern warfare and armed conflicts. Kutbilim Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2).

Molloy, O. (2024). Drones in modern warfare: Lessons learnt from the war in Ukraine. Australian Army Research Centre, 29.

Noël, A., & Thérien, J.-P. (2008). Left and right in global politics. Cambridge University Press.

Omtzigt, P. (2023, August 20). Partij Nieuw Sociaal Contract opgericht.

Palik, M., & Nagy, M. (2019). Brief history of UAV development. Repüléstudományi Közlemények, 31(1), 155–166.

Pennings, P. (2018). Polarization or post-Cold War consensus? Trends in the partisan positions on internationalism and defence, 1945–2016 [Unpublished manuscript].

Pelopidas, B., & Renic, N. C. (2024). The tragedy trap: On the tragicized politics of nuclear weapons and armed drones and the making of unaccountability. Ethics & International Affairs, 38(2), 209–231.

Rathbun, B. (2004). Partisan interventions: European party politics and peace enforcement in the Balkans. Cornell University Press.

Rickli, J.-M., & Mantellassi, F. (2024). The war in Ukraine: Reality check for emerging technologies and the future of warfare. Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

Sullivan, J. M. (2006). Evolution or revolution? The rise of UAVs. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 25(3), 43–49.

UC3M. (n.d.). EU Political Barometer: Party classification.

Wagner, W., Herranz-Surrallés, A., Kaarbo, J., & Ostermann, F. (2017). The party politics of legislative-executive relations in security and defense policy. West European Politics, 40(1), 20–41.

Wagner, W. (2020). The democratic politics of military interventions: Political parties, contestation, and decisions to use force abroad. Oxford University Press.

Wagner, W., & Raunio, T. (2020). The party politics of foreign and security policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(4), 515–531.