In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: battlefield robots

01 May

...places. Matt and I have also seen how much interest is developing among international law and national security academics around this topic, as well as around robots and the law more generally, and we’re delighted to be part of it. We welcome substantive comments, here at OJ or as well by email.   Lethal autonomous machines will inevitably enter the future battlefield — but they will do so incrementally, one small step at a time. The combination of inevitable and incremental development raises not only complex strategic and operational questions...
01.05.12 | |

29 Nov

...AI DSS in their battlefield decision-making to defend Ukraine against Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion. Some domestically developed systems, such as Kropyva or GIS Arta, have been nicknamed ‘artillery Uber’ because they integrate data from radars, drone footage and other sources to compute and share information about Russian forces’ positions with Ukrainian artillery units in real time. Other types of AI-based decision-making software are supplied by foreign companies such as Palantir Technologies, which, according to its CEO Alex Karp, is “responsible for most of the targeting in Ukraine”. While the Israeli...
29.11.24 | |

18 Nov

...distinguished just combatants from unjust combatants or else ignored the combatant/civilian distinction altogether and just focused on individual contribution to the war. Yet, (un)justness of cause is mired in uncertainty (what Dill terms “an epistemically-cloaked forced choice”) and the complexity of the battlefield makes it impossible to determine individual contribution to the war. Consequently, any attempt to design a more nuanced doctrine of targeting will end up being impossible to administer and too vague to offer real guidance for belligerents, thereby violating the rule of law – a moral principle...
18.11.13 | |

29 Aug

...rounds." diane1976 What was the legal justification for violating Pakistani sovereignty? That the battlefield included the part of their country in which his house was located? This seems to be a war with a moving battlefield that follows people around wherever they may be and whatever they may be doing. Chris Diane: I think the most rational argument for the violation of Pakistani sovereignty is that Pakistan was unwilling or unable to act against al Qaeda, which organises armed attacks against the US from within Pakistan's territory. If we accept...
29.08.12 | |

04 Apr

...time constraints, humans are more likely to defer to the judgment of machines. While a human theoretically remains in the loop, there are uncertainties regarding the extent to which humans truly maintain meaningful control or exercise judgment within these military decision-making processes.   AI-DSS’s Error Rates, Accuracy Issues and Risks In addition to speed and scale, the incremental use of AI-DSS hinges on two key assumptions: decision-advantage and accuracy. Both require closer examination. One stated goal is for AI to increase decision-making speed on the battlefield in pursuit of “decision advantage”...
04.04.24 | and |

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 | |

03 Aug

...remarks in some years about war and law were those written three years ago in this paper [TLS] by John Keegan. “The experience of land war in two world wars”, Adam Roberts observes in The Laws of War, the book Keegan is reviewing, “‘must necessarily raise a question as to whether formal legal codification is necessarily superior to notions of custom, honour, professional standards, and natural law’ in making for battlefield decencies.” Keegan answers simply, “There is no substitute for honour as a medium for enforcing decency on the battlefield,...
03.08.12 | |

01 May

...stress) and, negligence in the battlefield itself , under stress and fire, where, the judgment of commander actions , shall and must be, much less severe, due to probable necessities and improvisations on the ground . And so , If : negligence, is revealed prior to battlefield stress, and : could be avoided by carefully or reasonably sticking to written protocols, and : huge loss could be anticipated in advance due to it , then: The prosecutor in Hague , could find great interest in it .For less than that...
01.05.16 | |

08 Jan

...world.” For you law-of-armed-conflict fans, looks like Judge Bates was particularly interested in where the petitioners were initially captured; most claim they were no where near Afghanistan much less an Afghan battlefield when taken into custody. (Petitioner Redha al-Najar, for example, has witnesses who say he was in his home in Karachi, Pakistan when taken.) While the issue looks like it arose at the 3.5-hour hearing in discussions of Kennedy’s practical-obstacles test (it’s not like the military would have to pull witnesses off the battlefield to testify since these guys...
08.01.09 | |

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 | |

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 | |

21 May

...by Pakistan itself, not by third parties, and so far it has implicitly acquiesced. Therefore, the statement only deals with the justification for targeting Bin Laden with lethal military force in the specific location where he was found. On 9/18/01 when the AUMF was passed, the Taliban controlled 90% of the area of Afghanistan, represented the only functioning government, and had an army of 45,000 soldiers engaged in a conventional battlefield against insurgents (the Northern Alliance). One can argue that this armed conflict started as an IAC. If so, I...
21.05.11 | |