Search: battlefield robots

...anyone grappling with this issue understands that decisions related to the employment of combat power are not resolved in the quiet and safe confines of law libraries, academic conferences, or even courtrooms; they are resolved in the intensely demanding situations into which our nation thrusts our armed forces. The law must, as it always has, remain animated by the realities of warfare in the effort to strike a continuing credible balance between the authority to prevail on the battlefield and humanitarian objective of limiting unnecessary suffering. The clarity of the...

...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...

...the Rome Statute defines them as acts which “took place in the context of and were associated with an international armed conflict”. Associated suggests that the conduct is in relation to the conflict but not necessarily in the middle of the battlefield. As stated by the ICTY in the Kunarac case, “a violation of the laws or customs of war may therefore occur at a time when and in a place where no fighting is actually taking place”.  Some of the widely known elements to define the nexus requirement in Kunarac...

...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...

...Sufficiently Grave Over the past year, the world has witnessed a barrage of Russian cyber-attacks aimed at civilian targets, deployed at an unrelenting pace, and posing a persistent threat to civilians and critical infrastructure in Ukraine. As Russia fails to achieve its desired outcomes on the battlefield, the number and severity of cyber-attacks will continue to escalate. The ICC Prosecutor has a unique opportunity to bring a case that could set meaningful legal precedent and take an essential first step towards protecting civilians against 21st century threats during armed conflicts....

...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....

...foreign policy costs of the legal policy (the legal case was made by Taft in a separate memo ) quite well. In the section addressing the costs of determining that the GC did not apply to combatants captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan he noted: It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general. It has a high cost in terms of negative...

...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...

...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...