Search: battlefield robots

“The story of Ahmed Timol is rooted in our brutal past. He was not cut down on the battlefield while in the line of fire. He was detained under pernicious security laws and sadistically tortured for more than 4 days. Timol’s tormentors were police officers who were meant to serve and protect, particularly those in their care. While in an utterly incapacitated and defenceless state, and to cover up their crimes, Timol was thrown from the 10th floor of John Vorster Square. Even though he survived the fall the police...

...developed to regulate the conduct of States and individuals might extend to the use of AI as it starts assuming the tasks that human beings traditionally performed on the battlefield.’ (p.135). Whilst the general consensus of the international community, at this time, is that IHL should continue to be the applicable legal framework to regulate LAWS, given the additional concerns and difficulties associated with regulating artificial intelligence generally, revisiting how IHL will apply to the military use of this technology will very much remain a work in progress. In line...

...has its origins in the 1929 Convention. What is the significance (if any) of the mixed practice under that Convention? Does the discussion at the 1999 Montreal Conference leave interpretative options open (other than for the plaintiff!). It looks as if this case could give the rules of treaty interpretation a good workout. Perhaps the failure of the Montreal Conference to resolve the issue (along with some other key issues in carriage by air) allows scope for what Jan describes as a “battlefield” and for continuation of unresolved political issues....

...U.S. citizens; the question was whether this congressional grant of detention power extended not only to a battlefield in Afghanistan (as in Hamdi), but also to the United States. Last year, Feinstein successfully introduced an amendment to the FY2012 NDAA that carefully preserved the status quo by specifying that the act did not alter existing law or authorities relating to the detention of individuals arrested in the United States, regardless of citizenship. But Feinstein’s amendment to this year’s NDAA weakens the effect of that language. While the new amendment would...

...profoundly skeptical of HRW’s ability to effectively investigate them: In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Bernstein is talking here about the problems HRW faces in investigating Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, not Hamas’s war crimes. But...

...when speaking at the Pentagon, Vice President Pence backed the President’s view, asserting, “…our adversaries have transformed space into a warfighting domain already. And the US will not shrink from the challenge.” The pivot to use of force becomes clear when you compare the 2011 and 2018 DoD reports. The former report advocates for interagency cooperation while the latter calls for military leadership of a new military branch. Perhaps most striking is the 2018 DoD report’s repeated references (some two dozen) to the “battlefield” of space or “warfighting” in space....

...world we live in, not the world we wish we lived in. Such rules should not provide greater protection than we would provide to American citizens held as enemy combatants in this conflict; and they must assure that court proceedings are not permitted to interfere with the mission of our armed forces. In other words, soldiers fighting the war on terror, for example, should not be required to leave the front lines to testify as witnesses in habeas hearings. Affidavits prepared after battlefield activities have ceased should be enough. And,...

...decision-making power. (And, if that wasn’t challenging enough, ITM is evaluating this question in the context of battlefield triage: a complex, time-sensitive situation where even experts disagree about what should be prioritized.) DARPA’s structure foregrounds how much individual choice can impact technological research and development. Program managers wield enormous discretionary power over what technological breakthroughs are pursued and how new technologies take shape. They determine the problems that significant funds are dedicated to solving, set the metrics for success, select the performers (researchers and developers who endeavor to achieve the...

...be satisfied (the “if you give a mouse a cookie” problem). The NGO advocates fundamentally (i) oppose the CIA ever using force, (ii) oppose targeted killing outside of some legally novel concept of a “hot battlefield” as a violation of human rights law, (iii) do not accept that a process is governed by the rule of law unless an Article III judge has ruled on it (and depending on the outcome, not necessarily even then), rather than any process of accountability among the political branches alone, and (iv) have grave...

...social science faculty and graduate students interested in learning about empirical research. There is more information available about the workshop here. The New York City Bar is hosting an event entitled T argeted Killing Away from a “Hot Battlefield:” Exploring the Legal Issues on May 28, 2013. Click here to register. The University of Amsterdam’s Research Project on Shared Responsibility in International Law (SHARES) will organise a seminar on Distribution of Responsibilities in International Law in Amsterdam on 30 and 31 May 2013. This seminar will consider extra-legal perspectives on...

...by this approach, omission liability ensures accountability at the level of operationalisation of LAWS in the battlefield. Thus, despite the silence of the ICCSt. in this regard, the ICC could fill this gap by drawing from the various sources of applicable law. On balance, it appears that reliance on customary international law might be misplaced as the elements of State practice and opinio juris cannot be strongly established. A more viable route to institute general omission liability is through general principles, with care being taken to avoid the sampling biases....

...military operations abroad. In most cases, those rights have been developed and interpreted in peaceful democracies. Can they be applied to conflict zones abroad and if so, how? Will national courts have to develop exceptions to accommodate the law of armed conflict and the realities of the battlefield? The interaction of international human rights and the laws of war has caused much controversy and uncertainty, and national courts may be less than eager to subject their constitutions to the same stress test. Each court is also working within the constraints...