DiscussionResponse

Identifying even more Common Ground:

Autonomous Weapons must not be Exploited to their Full Potential!

A response to Sebastian Wuschka and Rebecca Crootof In order to avoid the undesirable consequence of becoming outmoded by newly invented methods and means of combat, the normative regime of the ius in bello has always been and is currently even more so dependent upon the ability to anticipate future technological developments in the area of weaponry. Against this background one can indeed readily agree with the widely shared perception that it is …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Autonomous Weapon Systems and Proportionality

A response to Sebastian Wuschka and Rebecca Crootof Recently, two statements on autonomous weapon systems have been published on this blog. In his post, Sebastian Wuschka argues that, because they are not human, autonomous weapon systems “can never be entrusted with the performance of proportionality assessments under IHL”. In her response, Rebecca Crootof states that this is not even necessary, given that it is incumbent on the human commander alone to carry …

READ MORE →

Current Developments

Individual compensation reloaded

German governmental liability for unlawful acts in bello

On 30 April, the Appeals Court of Cologne will rule on whether Germany has to pay compensation to victims of an airstrike in Afghanistan. Its judgment is likely to consolidate the new German approach to questions of compensation for armed activities which – given the increasing relevance of litigation about armed conflicts – merits a brief treatment.

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Autonomous weapon systems and proportionality

A response to Sebastian Wuschka An autonomous weapon system is “a weapon system that, based on conclusions derived from gathered information and preprogrammed constraints, is capable of independently selecting and engaging targets.” In his recent post, Sebastian Wuschka argues that the use of such weaponry will necessarily violate the law of armed conflict—specifically, the proportionality requirement. Wuschka and I agree that, because artificial intelligence is not now capable of human-like reasoning, we …

READ MORE →

DiscussionKick-off

Proportionality assessments under IHL – A human thing?

The employment of drones for targeted killings has triggered a debate on the use of lethal force without direct human presence at the battlefield. Regarding the legal framework for today’s remotely-piloted drone systems, this debate must be considered settled. Their conduct’s legal evaluation depends on the execution of each specific strike. Generally, their employment will only be legal under the law of armed conflict, IHL, and if IHL is complied …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Is civilian harm tracking a sensible idea?

A response to Ellen Policinski Ellen Policinski makes a persuasive case for the more widespread and systematic employment of civilian harm tracking. Let me tackle the matter from a different angle. The AP I article 57(1) obligation to take constant care would seem, on any sensible interpretation, to imply a requirement to identify what is causing any level of incidental civilian harm, not just excessive civilian harm, during military operations. …

READ MORE →

DiscussionKick-off

Civilian Harm Tracking: An Important Tool During Armed Conflict

Civilian harm is a tragic consequence of armed conflict. Incidental civilian harm – or collateral damage – is prevalent in modern conflicts, which often involve armed groups operating from within the population. Recent examples include operations in Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and the Gaza Strip. The emerging practice of civilian harm tracking is one tool that parties to armed conflict can use to better understand and address this tragic consequence …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Wie lässt sich die Einhaltung des humanitären Völkerrechts durch bewaffnete Gruppen verbessern?

Eine Replik zum Beitrag von Marco Sassoli. Dass das in bewaffneten Konflikten anwendbare humanitäre Völkerrecht alle Konfliktparteien bindet, einschließlich nicht-staatlicher Akteure, wird nicht bestritten. Allerdings bestehen unterschiedliche Ansätze, diese Bindung nicht-staatlicher Akteure herzuleiten.

READ MORE →

DiscussionKick-off

Völkerrecht von und für nicht-staatliche Handelnde

Das Beispiel des Einsatzes von Geneva Call für die Einhaltung humanitärer Regeln durch bewaffnete Gruppen

Trotz aller modernen Theorien bleibt Völkerrecht besessen vom Phänomen des Staates. Die internationale Wirklichkeit ist hingegen immer mehr (auch) von nicht-staatlichen Handelnden geprägt.

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Pebble in the shoe or elephant in the room?

A Response to the post by Adrian Di Giovanni In his post, Adrian Di Giovanni drew our attention to the notion of Do No Harm, focusing on the context of humanitarian assistance. He observes the increase in relying on or at least mentioning this concept on the international level and rightly asks the question what the meaning could be in a more specific sense. I would like to add to …

READ MORE →