scholarly journals Into the Caves of Steel: Precaution, Cognition and Robotic Weapon Systems Under the International Law of Armed Conflict

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan David Herbach
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Weapon Systems ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict

scholarly journals Debating Autonomous Weapon Systems, their Ethics, and their Regulation under International Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Anderson ◽  
Matthew C. Waxman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
International Debate ◽  
Weapon Systems ◽  
Law And Ethics ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law

An international public debate over the law and ethics of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) has been underway since 2012, with those urging legal regulation of AWS under existing principles and requirements of the international law of armed conflict in argument with opponents who favour, instead, a preemptive international treaty ban on all such weapons. This chapter provides an introduction to this international debate, offering the main arguments on each side. These include disputes over defining an AWS, the morality and law of automated targeting and target selection by machine, and the interaction of humans and machines in the context of lethal weapons of war. Although the chapter concludes that a categorical ban on AWS is unjustified morally and legally—favouring the law of armed conflict’s existing case-by-case legal evaluation—it offers an exposition of arguments on each side of the AWS issue.

scholarly journals Instytucjonalizacja współpracy w zakresie grobownictwa wojennego

2015 ◽  
pp. 88-103
Author(s):  
Joanna Szymoniczek
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Social Organizations ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Us ◽  
Special Protection

Resting places of fallen soldiers – war cemeteries – are monuments to soldiers’ heroism, and thus are of special significance not only for those who have lost their loved ones, but also for entire nations, countries and communities. Therefore, such cemeteries are created under the provisions of relevant authorities, and then put under the special protection of the public. These issues are closely regulated by international law established throughout the twentieth century. Cemeteries are protected by the state on whose territory individual objects are placed. However, the problem of cemeteries is more and more often the responsibility of social organizations. According to the international humanitarian law of armed conflict, specific tasks in this respect are assigned to the tracing services of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, who deal with the registry of exhumation, inhumation and body transfer, hold deposits, establish the fate of victims of war and issue death certificates. Institutions that deal with exploration, keeping records, exhumation of remains and the construction or revaluation of the graves of fallen citizens buried outside the borders of their own countries include the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites, the German People’s Union for the Care of War Graves, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Austrian Red Cross (Österreichisches Schwarzes Kreuz), the American Battle Monuments Commission, the US Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad and the Italian Commissariat General for the Memory of Killed in War (Commissariato Generale per le Onoranze Caduti in Guerra). For political reasons, tasks related to war cemeteries are assigned to social organizations, because their actions are believed to be more effective and less bureaucratic than those of states.

scholarly journals Military necessity in Geneva conventions of 1949

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-201
Author(s):  
Vladan Joncic ◽  
Milos Petrovic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
The Military

The fundamental question of international law of armed conflict is the question of military necessity principle in international law of armed conflict, ie. in international humanitarian law. Hearings on this issue is necessary because it is still the danger that the principle of recognition of the needs of military regulations and deceive the application of international law of armed conflict. That?s why the military needs to be seen as a permitted deviation from compliance with rules of war. Extreme, this concept has led to the emergence of the theory of the military. Its radical variant of the proceeds from the Maxims of German classical scholars of international law. The result of theoretical assumptions had the effect of limiting the acceptance of military necessity of the first codification of the day. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949. The heavily consider the military. In all the texts of international conventions is determined by military necessity, as a circumstance or set of circumstances which affect the duty of obeying the regulations of international law. In international law there is no general rule of military necessity as a basis or reason for justified violations of rules of international law of armed conflict. The rules of international law represent a compromise between the desire for a decoration rules of warfare and the need to ensure all the necessary tools that can lead to victory. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949. the military need to provide in terms of the principles of humanity. Set rules on military necessity in the Geneva Conventions give the right correction factor in the role of the law of armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions there is a degree of confusion in terminology, where the concept of military necessity needlessly allocated a number of synonyms. This is because the international law of armed conflict and emerged as a normative regulation of proportionality between the military needs) and general principles and humane principles.

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 243-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
International Human

SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

The Legal Interoperability of the Laws of Armed Conflict

2019 ◽  
pp. 70-88
Author(s):  
Michael Newton
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Centripetal Force ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Pragmatic Aspects ◽  
Shared Norms

The chapter considers some of the pragmatic aspects of engaging in multinational military operations in relation to cooperation among the various participating states. These aspects include differing treaty obligations, diverging interpretations of shared norms, or different command structures. Coalition partners deployed to pursue such larger goals must manage operational friction in order to achieve the necessary cohesion. State practice demonstrates discrepancies between partners over what international law obligations apply to forces in the field, which in turn produces disagreements about the conditions those duties entail. At the same time, the modern law of armed conflict provides a sort of centripetal force providing essential cohesion to modern multinational coalitions. It provides normative regularity constraining the class of persons against whom violence may be lawfully applied.

14. The law of armed conflict

2019 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted—jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7. deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document