Fragmented Wars: Multi-Territorial Military Operations against Armed Groups

Recent years have seen the emergence of significant legal debate surrounding the use of force against armed groups located in other States. With time, it has become clear that in many cases such operations are not confined to the territory of one other State, but expand to encompass multiple territories and often more than one armed group. This article examines multi-territorial conflicts with armed groups through the lens of several legal frameworks. Among other topics, it analyses the questions surrounding the extension of self-defense into multiple territories, the classification of the hostilities with the group and between involved States, the scope of the battlefield, the use of terms such as ?associated forces? in the context of armed groups, and the interplay with human rights law in such operations. This article sets out to draw together the threads of these debates in the last fifteen years, to analyze new questions that have emerged, examine how they impact upon each other, and suggest a way forward for overcoming the legal challenges

The Problem of Imminence in an Uncertain World

This chapter deals with the concept of imminence within the context of anticipatory self-defence under international law. It examines the meaning of imminence, its interpretation, what it might justify and/or exclude, and whether it can be upheld as a criterion to face modern challenges. It outlines the requirement of imminence in relation to the debatable right to anticipatory self-defence, paying particular attention to the development of state practice and the opinions of commentators. It considers the specific context of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and examines the reasons that these are sometimes seen as necessitating a new conception of imminence. The chapter provides an analysis of what new approaches might mean, and whether they can be contained within an understanding of imminence. In so doing, the chapter analyses the notion of certainty, the need for evidence, and the effect of the scale of threat on the decision-making process

Fragmented Wars: Multi-Territorial Military Operations against Armed Groups

Recent years have seen the emergence of significant legal debate surrounding the use of force against armed groups located in other States. With time, it has become clear that in many cases such operations are not confined to the territory of one other State, but expand to encompass multiple territories and often more than one armed group. This article examines multi-territorial conflicts with armed groups through the lens of several legal frameworks. Among other topics, it analyses the questions surrounding the extension of self-defense into multiple territories, the classification of the hostilities with the group and between involved States, the scope of the battlefield, the use of terms such as ?associated forces? in the context of armed groups, and the interplay with human rights law in such operations. This article sets out to draw together the threads of these debates in the last fifteen years, to analyze new questions that have emerged, examine how they impact upon each other, and suggest a way forward for overcoming the legal challenges

Strategic Proportionality: Limitations on the Use of Force in Modern Armed Conflicts

The nature of modern armed conflicts, combined with traditional interpretations of proportionality, poses serious challenges to the jus ad bellum goal of limiting and controlling wars. In between the jus ad bellum focus on decisions to use force, and the international humanitarian law (IHL) regulation of specific attacks, there is a far-reaching space in which the regulatory role of international law is bereft of much needed clarity. Perhaps the most striking example is in relation to overall casualties of war. If the jus ad bellum is understood as applying to the opening moments of the conflict, then it cannot provide a solution to growing numbers of casualties later in the conflict. Moreover, if it does not apply to non-international armed conflicts, then it is of little use in relation to alleviating the suffering of war for a vast proportion of conflicts in the past half a century and more. IHL is equally unsuited for dealing with overall casualties, as it may be the case that each individual attack is proportionate, but the cumulative number of civilians being killed is slowly rising to intolerable figures. A similar problem arises with regard to assessing other forms of accumulated destruction. This article sets out a new approach to proportionality in armed conflict and the regulation of war. It advocates for a principle of “strategic proportionality,” stemming from general principles of international law and reflected in state practice, and which requires an ongoing assessment throughout the conflict balancing the overall harm against the strategic objectives. The article traces the historical development and aims of the principle of proportionality in war, sets out the scope and aims of strategic proportionality, and provides an analysis of how such a principle can be operationalized in practice

Machine learning, artificial intelligence, and the use of force by states

Machine learning algorithms have begun to play a critical role in modern society. Governments inevitably will employ machine learning to inform their decisions about whether and how to resort to force internationally. This essay identifies scenarios in which states likely will employ machine learning algorithms to guide their decisions about using force, analyzes legal challenges that will arise from the use of force-related algorithms, and recommends prophylactic measures for states as they begin to employ these tools

Cyborg Soldiers: Military Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces and the Law of Armed Conflict

Recent years have seen a spotlight aimed at new technologies and how they might be used by the military. Scholars and policymakers have given much attention to autonomous weapons systems and artificial intelligence, as well as to cyber operations, but far less notice is paid to a host of other technologies which may also transform the way conflicts are conducted. One of these other areas of technological advancement is human enhancement. While a full survey of every enhancement technology is impossible in a work of this kind, this Chapter addresses a specific class of enhancement known as brain-computer interfaces (BCI). While this technology is still in its infancy, the Chapter identifies international humanitarian Law (IHL) issues arising from future military uses based on potential technological development. One of the most pressing issues regarding BCIs is whether the existing IHL framework, designed to regulate and safeguard the needs of conventional soldiers, can address the legal conundrums that are likely to arise when BCIs are deployed on the battlefield. To that end, this Chapter provides an analysis of IHL implications relevant to a number of rules, in relation to BCI reliance on data from AI systems, weapons review, targeting the BCI, protection of individuals hors de combat, risk of perfidy, and accountability and responsibility. It also provides suggestions that, we hope, will aid in the future development of systems that can be used lawfully, and reduce the risk of those which are more likely to lead to violations

Guidelines on Investigating Violations of International Humanitarian Law: Law, Policy, and Good Practice

Investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law by the parties to an armed conflict are not only crucial to securing respect for IHL, but also to preventing future violations and enabling redress for victims of past violations. Despite the unquestionable importance of investigations, there is a lack of detail about the international law, principles and standards relevant to investigations in armed conflicts. This is further reflected in the disparate practice across States in the way investigations are carried out. These Guidelines aim to bring much needed clarity and support for the conduct of effective investigations into violations of IHL. The Guidelines are the result of a five-year project, initiated in 2014 by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and joined in 2017 by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The resulting publication is based on extensive research and is also informed by a series of expert workshops and engagement with stakeholders. The 16 Guidelines are each accompanied by a detailed commentary and provide guidance on the different aspects of investigations into violations of IHL, from the early stages of recording information and identifying the incidents that require investigation, through to the structural and procedural aspects of investigative bodies. The text presents a basis for the conduct of effective investigations, while taking into account the diverse legal and military systems that exist, as well as the legal and practical challenges that can arise. These Guidelines are an essential tool not only for States aiming to conduct investigations of IHL violations in compliance with international law, but also for other bodies and individuals seeking a more detailed understanding of investigations in armed conflict