The Law of Armed Conflict

Solis, Gary D.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316471760

Cited by 82 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also important from a legal standpoint. In international law, all belligerent parties are obliged to implement international humanitarian law (IHL), the law that applies to armed conflicts (Gill and Fleck 2010;Solis 2010). One core principle of IHL is that belligerents are limited in the choice of means of warfare they can implement (Additional Protocol I 1977), and this sets requirements for which weapons can be deployed against the enemy, and in what way (Fleck 2013).…”

Section: The Need For a Working Framework Of Mhcmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Practicable Operationalisation of Meaningful Human Control

Kwik

2022

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meaningful Human Control (MHC) has been a consistent key term in legal debates concerning autonomous weapon systems (AWS), but its usefulness as a policy or lawmaking tool is limited due to a lack of clarity on what the concept encompasses. This study engaged in a thorough literature study of official statements, policy papers and academic papers published between 2013–2021 to determine features common to these proposals and synthesise a workable framework of MHC. The framework identifies five core elements—awareness, weaponeering, context control, prediction and accountability—and many interlocking mechanisms which link these elements together in a causal and chronological manner corresponding to the military targeting process. Subsequently, a detailed commentary and discussion is provided on the individual differences between sources, how specific elements can be implemented in practice by military commanders, and particularly controversial points are highlighted which require specific consideration by commentators and policymakers. The framework identifies concrete and practicable ways commanders can exercise control over AWS and serves as a solid foundation for further legal analysis of commanders’ duties when employing AWS, for future policy discussions, and as a problem-solving tool to resolve important legal questions such as the ubiquitous ‘accountability gap’ conundrum.

show abstract

Section: The Need For a Working Framework Of Mhcmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Practicable Operationalisation of Meaningful Human Control

Kwik

2022

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…76 In contrast to the assumptions underlying the discussion in the previous section, even fully autonomous systems currently always involve a human being who 'makes, approves, or overrides a fire/don't fire decision'. 77 Furthermore, such systems have been designed by humans, who have programmed them within specified parameters, which include the need to observe the existing law of armed conflict. 78 These systems are deployed into battle by human operators and their commanders, 79 who thus carry command responsibility, 80 including the possible application of strict liability standards known from civil law.…”

Section: Cyberspace and Aimentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Intelligence, Law, and National Security

Afsah¹

2022

The Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conjecture 'that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it' 1 has motivated scientists for more than half a century, but only recently attracted serious attention from political decision-makers and the general public. This relative lack of attention is perhaps due to the long gestation of the technology necessary for that initial conjecture to become a practical reality. For decades merely an aspiration among a small, highly skilled circle engaged in basic research, the past few years have witnessed the emergence of a dynamic, economically and intellectually vibrant field.From the beginning, national security needs drove the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). These security needs were motivated in part by surveillance needs, especially codebreaking, and in part by weapons development, in particular nuclear test simulation. While the utilisation of some machine intelligence has been part of national security for decades, the recent explosive growth in machine capability is likely to transform national and international security, consequently raising important regulatory questions.Fueled by the confluence of at least five factorsthe increase in computational capacity; availability of data and big data; revolution in algorithm and software development; explosion in our knowledge of the human brain; and existence of an affluent and risk-affine technology industrythe initial conjecture is no longer aspirational but has become a reality. 2 The resulting capabilities cannot be ignored by states in a competitive, anarchic international system. 3

show abstract

“…56 Przepis ten wyłącza nie tylko możliwość zastosowania siły jako instrumentu polityki zagranicznej, ale nawet groźby jej użycia. Ponadto, jak zauważa Gary Solis, "międzynarodowe prawo zwyczajowe odnosi zakaz użycia siły także do państw nienależących do ONZ, chociaż już nie rozszerza go na niepaństwowych aktorów czy zorganizowane grupy zbrojne" 57 . Jedynymi wyjątkami od powyższego zakazu są działania objęte autoryzacją Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ oraz mieszczące się w ramach prawa do samoobrony przed zbrojną napaścią.…”

Section: Rozpoczęcie Działań Bez Wypowiedzenia Wojnyunclassified

Prawne implikacje wybranych elementów terminu „wojna hybrydowa”

Ochmann

2019

10.14746/spp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term ‘hybrid war’ is not a legal term. It belongs to the terminology and concepts used in the studies on international relationships. Due to its popularization in mass media it has recently started to be used in new contexts. The purpose of the article is to ascertain the precise meaning of the term, and to determine the legal implications which a particular understanding of it may have in international public law. Certain understandings or interpretations of a given term determine its legal consequences and allow the assessment of their implications from the point of view of international law. Therefore in the first part of the article, a review and an examination of different ways of understanding the term ‘hybrid war’ have been conducted. Although the definitions that had been analyzed are noteworthy and they emphasize some aspects of the ‘hybrid war,’ they lack a definition of the term that would take into consideration all the dimensions of the issue of a hybrid war. Thus the attempt taken by the author to propose his own definition, aggregating all observations and insights made by the international relations experts so far, and enumerating the distinctive characteristics of hybrid wars. After that, some typical elements of a hybrid war are analyzed from the point of view of international public law. The paper investigates the possibility of qualifying hybrid methods as the ‘use of force,’ an ‘aggression’ and an ‘armed attack’ within the meaning of the United Nations Charter. It also examines the admissibility of a counter-attack within the framework of the right to self- defence. The issue raises many doubts particularly with regard to activities from below the threshold of war that are distinctive characteristics of a hybrid war. The legal implications of the use of a non-state actor to conduct an armed activity under international law were also raised, being referred to as proxy war.

show abstract

The Law of Armed Conflict

Cited by 82 publications

References 0 publications

A Practicable Operationalisation of Meaningful Human Control

A Practicable Operationalisation of Meaningful Human Control

Artificial Intelligence, Law, and National Security

Prawne implikacje wybranych elementów terminu „wojna hybrydowa”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About