Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) decision-support systems significantly impact how States make warfare decisions, conduct hostilities, and whether they comply with international humanitarian law. Decision-support systems, even if they do not autonomously execute targets, can play a critical role in the long chain of human-machine and machine-machine decision-making infrastructure, thus contributing to the co-production of hostilities.Due to a lack of a definition of the treaty terms weapons, means or methods of warfare, it is unclear whether non-weaponized AI decision-support systems should be subjected to a legal review prescribed by Article 36 of the Additional Protocol I. It remains a challenge to determine exactly what should be subjected to review beyond weapons.This chapter suggests that based on the following four criteria it can be determined whether an item should be subjected to a legal review: (i) it poses a challenge to the application of international humanitarian law; (ii) it is integral to military decision-making; (iii) it has a significant impact on military operations; (iv) and it contributes to critical offensive capabilities. These four criteria are derived from a detailed analysis of the conceptualization of the terms weapons, means or methods of warfare by states. If an item meets all four criteria, it should not be deployed without the issue of legality being explored with care.By applying the legal review to AI decision-support systems, States fulfil the duty to observe international humanitarian law in decision-making and mitigate risks to unlawful conduct in warfare. The author further promotes the conceptualization of Article 36 as a review of technologies of warfare.

The Year in Review seeks to provide readers with an overview of developments with significant relevance to international humanitarian law (IHL)/the law of armed conflict (LOAC) that took place during 2021. More specifically, the Year in Review assesses: (i) potential situations of armed conflict, including a classification of them as international or non-international armed conflicts, belligerent occupation, or situations not meeting the relevant legal requirements for the application of IHL; (ii) a summary of relevant proceedings and developments relating to the prosecution of serious violations of IHL—war crimes—at international, hybrid, and domestic courts and tribunals; and, (iii) an overview of developments in the IHL-related fields of arms control and disarmament.

The purpose of the Year in Review is to provide readers with an overview of events that took place in 2020 with significant relevance to international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL). These events include: (i) an outlook on ongoing hostilities and related developments, including the analysis of their classification as international (IAC) and/or non-international armed conflicts (NIAC); (ii) a summary of relevant proceedings and decisions by international courts and tribunals as well as those of national courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction, and (iii) an overview of developments, including the status of relevant treaties, regarding conventional and non-conventional arms control and disarmament, and weaponization of the outer space.

The main theme of this volume of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law is the development and interpretation of international humanitarian law (IHL). It is elaborated upon in several chapters that examine the role of non-state armed groups in the development and interpretation of IHL, the impact of international criminal law on the development of IHL, the notion of external non-international armed conflicts, and the regulation of prolonged occupation under international law. The second theme of this volume is dedicated to targeting in armed conflicts. Specific topics include precautions in attack in urban and siege warfare, the targeting of the Islamic State’s religious personnel in Iraq and Syria, and the targeting of illicit crops through aerial spraying in Colombia. Besides the chapters that address both themes, this volume also contains a Year in Review describing the most important events and legal developments that took place in 2017. The Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law is the world’s only annual publication devoted to the study of the laws governing armed conflict. It provides a truly international forum for high-quality, peer-reviewed academic articles focusing on this crucial branch of international law. Distinguished by contemporary relevance, the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law bridges the gap between theory and practice and serves as a useful reference tool for scholars, practitioners, military personnel, civil servants, diplomats, human rights workers and students.

The Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century (hereinafter the SG) was established in 2011 and conducted its first meeting in Sofia in 2012. It conducted a workshop in Leiden in November 2013. During this workshop, three general topics were explored. These were the relationship of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law in the conduct of military operations, technological challenges posed by new weapons systems and the function of the basic principles of IHL in the conduct of hostilities. An interim report on these topics was published and presented at the April 2014 Washington D.C. joint meeting of the ILA and the American Society of International Law. These topics were discussed further at a subsequent workshop held in Berlin at the Freie Universität in November of the same year. Attention was also devoted to the relationship of IHL with general international law and the place of IHL within the legal ‘pluriverse’ surrounding modern multinational military operations. The SG was unable to arrive at a consensus on a number of issues which arose, but the discussions were nevertheless extremely useful in highlighting some of the central questions related to the conduct of hostilities and focusing attention on the core area of the mandate; the legal challenges within IHL relating to the conduct of hostilities. It was decided in Berlin to refocus the work of the SG and the final report on those challenges and leave the broader questions of how IHL relates to other bodies of international law to further exploration in other forums.

The Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law is an authoritative peer reviewed annual publication with articles specially focused on current developments in the law of armed conflict, current armed conflicts and the interrelationship of IHL with other bodies of law and other disciplines.

The Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century (hereinafter the SG) was established in 2011 and conducted its first meeting in Sofia in 2012. It conducted a workshop in Leiden in November 2013. During this workshop, three general topics were explored. These were the relationship of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law in the conduct of military operations, technological challenges posed by new weapons systems and the function of the basic principles of IHL in the conduct of hostilities. An interim report on these topics was published and presented at the April 2014 Washington D.C. joint meeting of the ILA and the American Society of International Law. These topics were discussed further at a subsequent workshop held in Berlin at the Freie Universität in November of the same year. Attention was also devoted to the relationship of IHL with general international law and the place of IHL within the legal ‘pluriverse’ surrounding modern multinational military operations. The SG was unable to arrive at a consensus on a number of issues which arose, but the discussions were nevertheless extremely useful in highlighting some of the central questions related to the conduct of hostilities and focusing attention on the core area of the mandate; the legal challenges within IHL relating to the conduct of hostilities. It was decided in Berlin to refocus the work of the SG and the final report on those challenges and leave the broader questions of how IHL relates to other bodies of international law to further exploration in other forums.