The rapid advancement of military technologies—from armed drones and electronic warfare systems to autonomous weapons and human enhancement—has transformed the modern battlefield. While these innovations revolutionise tactics and strategies, traditional forms of warfare, such as heavy artillery and trench warfare, persist. The coexistence of these old and new methods presents unique challenges to the principles and application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Bridging New Technologies with IHL Principles
IHL, as enshrined in treaties like the Geneva Conventions, aims to mitigate the human cost of armed conflict by upholding principles such as distinction, proportionality, and necessity. However, these foundational tenets face unprecedented challenges in the context of emerging military technologies.
For example, armed drones enable precision strikes from a distance but complicate issues of accountability and adherence to the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians. The 2013 U.S. drone strike on a wedding convoy in Yemen, which resulted in civilian casualties, underscores the difficulty of ensuring proportionality and distinction in practice. To prevent misuse, robust oversight mechanisms are crucial.
Similarly, autonomous weapons systems (AWS) present a significant challenge to IHL. These systems, capable of operating without direct human intervention, raise ethical concerns about delegating life-and-death decisions to machines. The use of loitering munitions, or "kamikaze drones," in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict exemplifies the risks of AWS in warfare. Without human judgment, such systems could violate IHL principles, particularly distinction and proportionality.
In the realm of electronic and cyber warfare, attacks on critical infrastructure often blur the lines between military and civilian targets. The 2022 Russian cyberattacks on Ukraine, which disrupted civilian access to energy, healthcare, and communication, exemplify this challenge. These incidents highlight the difficulty of maintaining accountability and proportionality in cyberspace under current legal frameworks.
Additionally, human enhancement technologies, such as exoskeletons and neural enhancements explored by the U.S. Department of Defense, present unique ethical dilemmas. While these technologies could improve soldiers' capabilities, they risk creating combat disparities and post-war discrimination, potentially violating the principle of humanity under IHL.
Regulatory Hurdles for Advanced Weaponry
The rapid pace of technological development often outstrips the ability of legal frameworks to adapt, resulting in significant regulatory challenges. Existing IHL treaties lack explicit provisions for many of these technologies, requiring reinterpretation of rules to address emerging threats. For instance, autonomous drones necessitate new legal interpretations to determine their compliance with IHL.
States bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that new weapons systems comply with IHL. Rigorous legal reviews must be conducted to prevent violations that could lead to international accountability. However, the role of private entities also cannot be overlooked. Corporations involved in the design, production, and export of military technologies must adhere to arms control agreements and implement due diligence processes to prevent their products' misuse.
The Role of Key Stakeholders
The ethical deployment and regulation of advanced weaponry require coordinated efforts from states, armed groups, and private corporations. States must regulate the development and use of military technologies, train armed forces to adhere to IHL principles, and control exports to prevent unlawful applications. Armed groups, although non-state actors, are similarly bound by IHL and must ensure their compliance to minimize civilian harm.
Private corporations developing these technologies share the responsibility of ensuring their innovations meet legal and ethical standards. This includes implementing safeguards to prevent misuse and fostering transparency in their operations.
Conclusion
The integration of cutting-edge technologies into warfare underscores the urgent need for a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to ensure compliance with humanitarian principles. By bridging gaps in regulation and fostering dialogue between states, corporations, and civil society, the core aims of IHL—to protect human dignity and mitigate harm—can remain relevant in an increasingly complex landscape.
References and Further reading:
Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukrainian minister: 'Asymmetrical warfare means using technologies that the enemy doesn't expect' (Le Monde)
How Israel Uses AI in Gaza—And What It Might Mean for the Future of Warfare (Time)
Weapons and the human rights responsibilities of multinational corporations (Cambridge University Press)
Comments