The United States has long used unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to target militants.
The technology is now being used to target insurgents in Afghanistan, where UAVs are increasingly used for surveillance.
But drones can only be used for targeted surveillance in certain conditions.
The U.N. and other groups are calling for an end to such restrictions, arguing that UAV use for war is not a matter of military necessity but a matter for self-defense.
UAV technology has been used for war against both the Taliban and the Islamic State.
U.K.-based think tank Chatham House has called on the U,S.
and NATO to expand the use of drones in Afghanistan.
The group says drones are an effective way to gather intelligence on potential threats and provide support to ground troops and allied forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It also says the technology has the potential to reduce civilian casualties and enhance security in the region.
The use of unmanned aircraft to carry out strikes is a topic of debate in Afghanistan with the UAV community divided.
Drone maker DJI and its rival Amazon have argued that the technology can be used to carry weapons, such as mines, and is less expensive than manned aircraft.
Other drone companies say it is more cost effective to fly drones with the aim of killing insurgents.
The debate has led to drone strikes in Afghanistan in which drones were used against targets in areas that are not densely populated.
The drones were also used against Taliban fighters and other militants in the south of the country, where the United States and other countries have launched airstrikes.
Last month, the Pentagon announced that it had fired at least 15 drones in Yemen, which was a significant escalation of the conflict.
The Pentagon also said it had conducted drone strikes against targets including militants in Afghanistan on multiple occasions.
The government of Afghanistan has blamed the United Nations for not enforcing the international prohibition against using drones in populated areas, and it has criticized the United Kingdom for not banning the use.