In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: battlefield robots

24 Jun

...Mathews v. Eldridge (a 1976 Supreme Court case assessing what process was due before the government could deprive an individual of property) as setting the test for assessing how much process is required in the targeting case as well; Mathews is the test the Hamdi Court applied in 2004 in determining that U.S. citizen Yaser Hamdi, picked up on the Afghan battlefield, was entitled to notice of the reason for his detention and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral arbiter, once the exigency surrounding his battlefield seizure had...
24.06.14 | |

24 Jan

...the last twenty years – would still be considered lawful by States in case they constitute military objectives and sufficient precautions are taken. If mere battlefield behaviour were examined such targets would have to be considered off-limit. The same is true for nuclear weapons: on the basis of a mere consideration of battlefield practice, nuclear weapons would have to be considered unlawful – a position clearly not shared by the nuclear powers. This shows that verbal acts have an important impact on how battlefield practice has to be looked at....
24.01.06 | |

18 Jan

...of theory, should we focus on the issues from the standpoint of a military commander on "the battlefield" and more generally in a theatre of war and ask the questions, WHO would have a relevant human right even though global human rights law applies universally and in the context of war (international or non-international) and WHAT human right are we to consider? From that perspective, I would say that the first issue has been answered (and for some of you, please just assume the premise), that global human rights law...
18.01.12 | |

22 Apr

...the population. There are two things working against this acceptance of drones as a positive addition to the battlefield. One is quite simply the Terminator-like creepiness of machines making war against men that many people have commented upon in discussing drones. The other is the perception that drones, because they are remotely controlled, are less accurate than manned aircraft. The opponents of drone use in Pakistan and Yemen, whose legal complaint was mainly about whether the legal threshold of armed conflict had been crossed or whether the boundaries of the...
22.04.11 | |

23 Oct

...reading rights might make sense is years and miles removed from any actual battlefield, or if the simple reading of rights is all that stands in the way of welcoming a detainee to a lifetime of lawful imprisonment (after successful conviction in federal criminal court) rather than sending him off to Saudi Arabia for “rehabilitation.” To be clear, I do not mean to suggest that I think soldiers, for example, are somehow required to read combatant detainees Miranda warnings. Just the opposite: current law on Miranda warnings recognizes an exigency...
23.10.09 | |

16 Jan

...on the battlefield, even where the detainees themselves were captured elsewhere. Our federal courts require a chain of custody to be presented for all evidence introduced at trial, and this could pose a great deal of difficulty for our forces. Ultimately, we think we are not legally obligated to try al Qaida combatants under the laws of war, but have set up military commissions to prosecute those who have committed the most serious violations of the laws of war. Eric Posner invites me to say what is as stake in...
16.01.07 | |

27 Oct

Charles Gittings I have no idea what recrystallized hexogene is, but it sure sounds nasty. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX Kenneth Anderson This is so way cool! I'm thinking about putting on a very small conference - reallly a sort of experts discussion - on battlefield robots in the spring. Ill keep everyone posted. Chris Borgen Thanks, Charly! That link gave me memories of high school chemistry, albeit of a more explosive kind!...
27.10.08 | |

07 Sep

I have no desire to have the final word with Ken. But I would like answers to two questions. First, where does Melzer or the ICRC say that armed conflict is a geographically-bounded concept, such that a participant in an armed conflict ceases to be targetable as soon as he leaves the battlefield? I cited pages in Melzer’s book on targeted killing that indicate otherwise, but instead of addressing my counter-argument, Ken simply reiterated his initial claim. No cites, no quotes, no links, nothing. Second, if we assume — as...
07.09.10 | |

03 Sep

...determination, you should select the sentence which best serves the ends of good order and discipline, the needs of the accused, and the welfare of society." Determining how to strike this balance for an unlawful killing on the battlefield is undoubtedly complex. Observers will respond to the outcome of any trial with differing views on whether the sentence was "severe" or "light." But having worked on a "battlefield killing" case in the past, I believe that what we should really hope for is a military jury that will reject any...
03.09.06 | |

06 May

...Syrian government'. I cannot think of one regime that has unleashed chemical weapons at their disposal when faced with impending overthrow. Csarist Russia was the first to face this dilemma, and it didn't. Germany gassed its Jews but never used chemical weapons on the battlefield during its death throes. Japan gassed the Chinese but never the invading American forces. Chemical weapons are generally used as a side arsenal when it can employ them with relative confidence, not last resort weapon. The same could be said regarding Saddam's gassing of the...
06.05.13 | |

09 Oct

...order. From the context of US history, some of the arguments raised here do not make sense. The US did not regard any of the Confederate states to be independent countries, so the Civil War was a non-international conflict. The Confederacy was a military alliance between non-national co-belligerents, but it has always been regarded as a single war and not 11 separate armed conflicts, one with each Confederate state. No concept of locality was applied, and the US targeted forces in states that had previously not had battlefields or large...
09.10.10 | |

21 Jul

...solely to circumstances tactically on a battlefield, rather than taken in conjunction with the whole strategic operation of which any particular battle is merely a part. Many individual uses of force will appear disproportionate - pointless, even - if examined solely on their own, in isolation, rather than as part of a larger strategic campaign. Seamus While Arbour's statement may have lacked legal precision, perhaps she was intending to remind us that for the IDF virtually anything might be (and has been) construed as possessing military significance.... The strategic campaign...
21.07.06 | |