Rethinking the Geneva Conventions

Casey, Lee A.; Rivkin, David B.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511511110.012

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their ability to legislate away people’s desire to engage in reciprocity, which may be embedded in more fundamental values about fairness, is limited. On the other hand, others have argued that legal prohibitions against torture are actually ineffective without the threat of reciprocity (Casey and Rivkin 2006). For these observers, this study might be less unsettling.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs

Chu

2018

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reciprocity is one of the oldest principles of warfare, but humanitarian norms embedded in international humanitarian law (IHL) prohibit reciprocity over various wartime acts. When it comes to the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), how do these conflicting norms shape public opinion? One perspective is that citizens who learn about IHL acquire an unconditional aversion to abusing POWs. Alternatively, people may understand IHL as a conditional commitment that instead strengthens their approval for reciprocal conduct. Survey experiments fielded in the United States support the latter view: people’s preferences depend on the enemy’s behavior, and this “reciprocity effect” is largest among those who believe that the United States is legally committed to treating POWs humanely. Puzzlingly, prior studies do not find a reciprocity effect, but this is due to their use of a no-information experimental control group, which led to a lack of control over the subjects’ assumptions about the survey.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs

Chu

2018

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mendoza and Bygrave also support the idea of the existence of a right to explanation, arguing that such a right can be derived from GDPR Article 22(3), especially the provisions of the GDPR do not necessarily exclude the possibility interpretation after events (Mendoza & Bygrave, 2017). Bryan Casey, Ashkon Farhangi, Roland Vogl reiterate the debate on the right to explanation of the core scholarly work and claim that the GDPR introduces an explicit "right to explanation" (Casey, Farhangi, & Vogl, 2019). Maja Brkan provides another new idea for the existence of the right to explanation, that is, several GDPR clauses can be interpreted together.…”

Section: Academic Disputes Over the Right To Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Algorithm Interpretation Right—The First Step to Algorithmic Governance

Zou¹,

Zhang²

2022

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As artificial intelligence technologies are increasingly deployed in this digital era entitled to generate automated and semi-automated decisions, and the internal logic of machine learning algorithms is typically opaque, the absence of a right to explanation will put the individuals in a weak position, so the right to an explanation for such decisions has become a critical legal issue. The right to an explanation is first written in the "General Data Protection Regulations", and this year, China lays out the "Personal Information Protection Law", which also includes the right to explanation. However, there are still shortcomings in the relevant regulations. Therefore, this paper comprehensively sorts out the right to explanation by studying the relevant literature and using the method of comparison, points that to construct the applicable logic of the right to explanation in China to ensure its effective implementation, it is necessary to clarify the connotation of the right to explanation, establish its application path and build a collaborative governance system.

show abstract

“…In 1977, the Geneva Conventions added two protocols which "principally sought to provide additional protections for non-combatants, i.e., the civilian population." 8 Protocol I covers international conflicts while Protocol II is the first serious attempt to apply international humanitarian law to non-international conflicts. While the additional protocols "did not purport to alter, in any significant manner, the pre-existing rules regarding unlawful combatants," 9 the Protocols may actually have far-reaching implications regarding non-state actors and their combatant status.…”

Section: Signature:_____________________mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Law of Armed Conflict Need to Evolve With Respect to Non-State Actors?

Rawson¹

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The laws of armed conflict do not adequately address non-state actors, leaving their combatant status in question. While we may find short-term answers by creatively interpreting the existing guidance, we need to change the law to provide a long-term solution for dealing with non-state actors in armed conflicts, whether internal or international. Given the current doubt regarding the lawful combatant status of terrorists, mercenaries, international corporations, and multinational forces, operational commanders are required to provide all prisoners with a higher level of protection than they may actually be entitled to. This forces them to spend time and effort better used elsewhere. Since the focus of international power is gradually shifting from classic nation-states to non-state actors, the law needs to evolve as well, defining their authorized roles and ensuring that civilians and captured fighters receive the treatment they are entitled to. Ignoring the change in players will make the law irrelevant, undermining the protections it is intended to provide and resulting in confusion instead of order.

show abstract

Rethinking the Geneva Conventions

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs

A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs

Algorithm Interpretation Right—The First Step to Algorithmic Governance

Does the Law of Armed Conflict Need to Evolve With Respect to Non-State Actors?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About