scholarly journals Drone Attacks and the Principle of Proportionality in the Law of Armed Conflict

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Yunus Gül
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

scholarly journals The Rule of Law and the Role of Strategy in U.S. Nuclear Doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 126-166
Author(s):  
Scott D. Sagan ◽  
Allen S. Weiner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear War ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Conventional Weapons ◽  
Chain Of Command ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Military

Abstract In 2013, the U.S. government announced that its nuclear war plans would be “consistent with the fundamental principles of the Law of Armed Conflict” and would “apply the principles of distinction and proportionality and seek to minimize collateral damage to civilian populations and civilian objects.” If properly applied, these legal principles can have a profound impact on U.S. nuclear doctrine. The prohibition against targeting civilians means that “countervalue” targeting and “minimum deterrence” strategies are illegal. The principle of distinction and the impermissibility of reprisal against civilians make it illegal for the United States, contrary to what is implied in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, to intentionally target civilians even in reprisal for a strike against U.S. or allied civilians. The principle of proportionality permits some, but not all, potential U.S. counterforce nuclear attacks against military targets. The precautionary principle means that the United States must use conventional weapons or the lowest-yield nuclear weapons that would be effective against legitimate military targets. The law of armed conflict also restricts targeting of an enemy's leadership to officials in the military chain of command or directly participating in hostilities, meaning that broad targeting to destroy an enemy's entire political leadership is unlawful.

The Principle of Proportionality in an Era of High Technology

2018 ◽  
pp. 261-288
Author(s):  
Jack Beard
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Weapons Systems

This chapter explores the application of a key principle of the law of armed conflict—proportionality—in the context of new and emerging weapons systems and methods of warfare. The relentless pursuit of new military technologies by States continues to yield expanding lists of technology-related issues for lawyers to consider in applying the law of armed conflict in complex battlespaces on land, on sea, in air, in space, and in cyberspace. Foremost among these issues is the challenge presented by the principle of proportionality, requiring military forces to refrain from causing excessive damage to civilians and civilian objects when attacking military objectives. New weapons systems in complex battlespaces continue to increasingly force lawyers and decision makers to revisit, re-evaluate, and struggle in new contexts with the “equitable balance between humanitarian requirements and the sad necessities of war.” Some technological developments may, however, also present opportunities for the principle of proportionality to achieve greater relevance to the conduct of armed conflicts and even contribute to improved compliance by States. To illustrate these challenges and opportunities, this chapter examines the application of the principle of proportionality in modern armed conflicts with respect to several critical yet still evolving military technologies: unmanned aerial vehicles, autonomous weapons systems, cyber capabilities, and outer space technologies.

The Impact of Emerging Technologies on the Law of Armed Conflict

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Emerging Technologies ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Technological Advancement ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Emerging technologies have always played an important role in armed conflict. From the crossbow to cyber capabilities, technology that could be weaponized to create an advantage over an adversary has inevitably found its way into military arsenals for use in armed conflict. The weaponization of emerging technologies, however, raises challenging legal issues with respect to the law of armed conflict. As States continue to develop and exploit new technologies, how will the law of armed conflict address the use of these technologies on the battlefield? Is existing law sufficient to regulate new technologies, such as cyber capabilities, autonomous weapons systems, and artificial intelligence? Have emerging technologies fundamentally altered the way we should understand concepts such as law-of-war precautions and the principle of distinction? How can we ensure compliance and accountability in light of technological advancement? This book explores these critical questions while highlighting the legal challenges—and opportunities—presented by the use of emerging technologies on the battlefield.

scholarly journals The redirection of attacks by defending forces

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Tsvetelina van Benthem
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This article examines the redirection of incoming missiles when employed by defending forces to whom obligations to take precautions against the effects of attacks apply. The analysis proceeds in four steps. In the first step, the possibility of redirection is examined from an empirical standpoint. Step two defines the contours of the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Step three considers one variant of redirection, where a missile is redirected back towards the adversary. It is argued that such acts of redirection would fulfil the definition of attack under the law of armed conflict, and that prima facie conflicts of obligations could be avoided through interpretation of the feasibility standard embedded in the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Finally, step four analyzes acts of redirection against persons under the control of the redirecting State. Analyzing this scenario calls for an inquiry into the relationship between the relevant obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document