Search: battlefield robots

...have analysed states’ practices, how AGs view and interpret their international obligations has remained insufficiently explored. This knowledge gap has created challenges for humanitarian organizations seeking to engage with AGs on humanitarian access and respect for IHL. Attitudes and sources of influence on AG behaviour  The perspectives of AGs towards IHL, as well as their actual behaviour on the battlefield, are diverse and may change over time. They are contingent on a number of factors. For instance, a lack of capacity can explain the difficulties for AGs to comply with...

[Chanel Chauvet earned her Master of Laws in International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. She also holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Georgia School of Law. This is a post in our joint blog symposium with ICRC’s Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog exploring the new ICRC Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention ( GCIII Commentary ).] This post will explore the challenges of armed conflict that extend beyond the battlefield and into detention camps for many prisoners...

...humanitarian law to an awareness of finer points of battlefield law. The U.S.-weighted text incorporates lessons from many nations and includes hundreds of cases from jurisdictions worldwide. Professor Solis will provide a short explanation of his book and the challenges of illuminating the law of armed conflict in these challenging times. ASIL members Jamie Williamson, Legal Advisor to the ICRC in Washington, and Dick Jackson, Special Assistant to the Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War Matters and Chair of the Lieber Society, will provide commentary. Professor Solis will...

...status is due. Thus, for example, if we catch Osama Bin Laden running from the battlefield, there would be no doubt that he is not entitled to POW protections and the Conventions would not mandate an Article 5 review. As I stated in my last post, in response to Ken Anderson, we have in any event provided those detained at Guantanamo more extensive procedural protections in the CSRT process than in a typical Article 5 tribunal, including the opportunity to be heard from, to present reasonably available evidence, to obtain...

...war fighting justly. But suppose it isn’t possible. That’s what moral philosophers partly do – worry. What follows if it is not possible, or not a real possibility? What then? Well, the rules would have to be changed. We would have to reconsider the content of the rules jus in bello if we could not live within jus in bello and still have the just side win on the battlefield. ps. One general observation about the tenor of Professor Walzer’s (paraphrased) remark here. Just and Unjust Wars is taken in...

...target is planning a terrorist attack; what, if any, the battlefield limits are; and what, if any, is the basis in law. . . . . . . On balance, President Obama, who campaigned against the “dark side” of the war on terror and has insisted that America must lead by example as a nation of laws, owes Americans an accounting of his targeted killing program. Revenge killings don’t pass the test for me. They’re unacceptable under international law. I want to know that any target is selected because there...

...the benefits accorded to POWs under the Third Convention, despite their failing to follow the laws and customs of war? More critically, though, the drafters of the Third Geneva Convention were aware that they were not drafting the treaty in a way that would ensure that everyone who took up weapons on a battlefield would receive POW status. To begin with, Common Article 2 of the Conventions limits the application of the vast majority of provisions, including protections to be provided to POWs, to armed conflicts between two or more...

...ever it comes, will reflect the balance of power on the ground at the time of its conclusion, among other factors. Hence, offering this text is risky, as it either offers too many concessions to the one or other side, and sacrifices for the other, or not enough of them, depending on how the situation on the battlefield and other factors develop.  Inclusion of any particular step or possible solution in this document should not be taken to suggest that it must be included in a settlement. Indeed, the sides...

...therefore is considered a primary rationale for compliance with this law. However, in the context of the modern battlefield, this rationale may no longer be as persuasive as in the past. In fact, for at least a decade, U.S. military strategists have studied the concept of “asymmetrical warfare”, which is characterized by an enemy seeking to exploit U.S. commitment to compliance with the law of war to gain a tactical advantage. This is exactly the dynamic our forces confront in Afghanistan and Iraq. Asserting encouragement of reciprocity as the primary...

...purpose. While the company has previously licensed tech to the U.S. Military, it has never crossed the line into weapons development. With this contract, it does. The application of HoloLens within the IVAS system is designed to help people kill. It will be deployed on the battlefield, and works by turning warfare into a simulated “video game,” further distancing soldiers from the grim stakes of war and the reality of bloodshed. Intent to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology. Not surprisingly, Microsoft has defended the contract. Here...

...a platform for timely analysis, debate and commentary around legal challenges arising from the contemporary battlefield. We aim to identify practical issues, provide clarity on the law, and bring operational perspectives into the U.S. and international discussions around the law of armed conflict. Through this operational focus and open dialogue among leading scholars and practitioners we strive to create greater understanding to ensure that the law of armed conflict retains its relevance in contemporary times and to empower global combat leaders and government advisors with relevant information and discussion. Our...

...from the military hospital in which he was staying. The US is dispatching army planners to Jordan but is wary of direct American intervention in Syria. Human Rights Watch has urged Libya to allow access for Al-Senussi, char For readers who follow the US’ current conflict with al-Qaeda and affiliated forces closely, you may recall two guest posts (here and here) about a recent symposium entitled The Boundaries of the Battlefield. The organizers of that symposium (full-disclosure: I was one of them) have written a summary report on the symposium....