Search

Copyright of Foro Internacional is the property of El Colegio de Mexico AC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Advances in mobile phone technology and social media have created a world where the volume of information generated and shared is outpacing the ability of humans to review and use that data. Machine learning (ML) models and "big data" analytical tools have the power to ease that burden by making sense of this information and providing insights that might not otherwise exist. In the context of international criminal and human rights law, ML is being used for a variety of purposes, including to uncover mass graves in Mexico, find evidence of homes and schools destroyed in Darfur, detect fake videos and doctored evidence, predict the outcomes of judicial hearings at the European Court of Human Rights, and gather evidence of war crimes in Syria. ML models are also increasingly being incorporated by States into weapon systems in order to better enable targeting systems to distinguish between civilians, allied soldiers and enemy combatants or even inform decision-making for military attacks. The same technology, however, also comes with significant risks. ML models and big data analytics are highly susceptible to common human biases. As a result of these biases, ML models have the potential to reinforce and even accelerate existing racial, political or gender inequalities, and can also paint a misleading and distorted picture of the facts on the ground. This article discusses how common human biases can impact ML models and big data analytics, and examines what legal implications these biases can have under international criminal law and international humanitarian law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the six years since it was created, the Comisión Intersecretarial de Derecho Internacional Humanitario de México, Mexico's Interministerial Committee on International Humanitarian Law, has become one of the region's most active national bodies for the implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL). Its achievements are the result of the efforts of the federal executive branch agencies that form and participate in the Committee, as well as of the support that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Mexican Red Cross have provided to facilitate its work. In this article, the author describes the structure and operation of the Committee, as well as the activities it has carried out in fulfilling its mandate to disseminate and promote respect for IHL rules, principles and institutions and further the national implementation of IHL. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

When the Calderon Administration escalated anti-drug efforts in 2006, drug-related violence in Mexico reached unprecedented levels. The growing intensity of drug-related violence has led to uncertainty over how to classify the violence spreading across Mexico. Much of the public rhetoric argues that Mexico's drug-related violence has surpassed that which typically characterizes the drug trade and is instead more similar to armed conflict. Due to the changing landscape of Mexican drug violence, an assessment of whether or not the conflict meets the requisite conditions for a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) is needed to determine if the application of international humanitarian law is appropriate. This paper argues that Mexico's Drug War meets the conditions for NIAC status and application of IHL is appropriate. The question of how to respond to drug-related violence is becoming increasingly relevant as the effects of such violence extends to a more diverse geographic area within Mexico. NIAC status plays a central role in the future of anti-drug policy and has the potential to prompt significant changes in the handling of drug-related violence in Mexico. This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive answer to this question and identify the potential implications that recognition as a NIAC will have on Mexican anti-drug policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) in the so-called War on Drugs has considerable implications for the application of international humanitarian law and raises concern about the respect for human rights under antidrug assistance programs. This article will focus, in particular, on the ways in which the lack of state control over PMSC activities poses a major challenge for human rights protections in the short-term--by restricting the application of human rights law--as well as in the long-term--by further undermining state capacity and weakening the rule of law. Using the cases of Colombia and Mexico, this article will illustrate how PMSCs tend to add another dimension of complexity to complicated situations where the application of the rule of law is already uneven, increasing the risk of human rights violations and impunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]