The rapid development of drones has fundamentally changed modern warfare. While this technology is used to reduce military casualties and conduct precision strikes, its targeted killings across borders have raised serious questions from the perspective of international law. Assessing the legality of drone strikes is important because they affect state sovereignty, the right to life, and the international order. Clarifying this issue is essential to fill legal gaps and strengthen accountability systems. This study uses an analytical-descriptive method, which includes a study of Afghan case law, treaties, customary law, and UN reports in accordance with the frameworks of International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The findings show that most drone strikes are ambiguous in terms of jus ad bellum and jus in bello principles such as sovereignty, separation, proportionality, and necessity. States often justify these attacks under the guise of self-defense and counterterrorism, but effective accountability mechanisms are weak. The current state of drone warfare highlights the shortcomings of international legal frameworks, and these attacks fall into a “legal gray zone.” A comprehensive international legal framework is needed to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to international principles.