Lessons from the past for weapons of the future

Neringa Mickevičiūtė
{"title":"Lessons from the past for weapons of the future","authors":"Neringa Mickevičiūtė","doi":"10.1016/j.icj.2017.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>One of the key postulates of modern law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law (IHL) is that the choice of weapons by fighting parties is not unlimited. Thus, in order to ensure excessive harm is not inflicted, certain weapons are prohibited or their use is restricted. Although every case is quite unique, limitations related to weapons attest to the fact that effects of ordinary use of those weapons were deemed incompatible with the requirements of IHL. This article examines the potential for regulation of lethal autonomous weapons, while at the same time drawing upon lessons from the past. The analysis covers various ways how IHL restricts the choice of means of warfare – formal regulation, application of customary rules and principles to a weapon, and legal weapons review – all of which offer valuable insights on how to accommodate rising legal uncertainty over autonomous weapons. In this respect, the ‘headliner’ of World War II, the nuclear weapon, serves as an exceptional example that some weapons bring about unparalleled regulatory challenges. Like atom bomb, lethal autonomous weapons mark revolutionary changes in warfare. Yet, this article is to confirm applicability and adaptability of IHL to any new weapon, including an autonomous one.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":32140,"journal":{"name":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":"2 2","pages":"Pages 99-106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.icj.2017.01.002","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351667416300440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

One of the key postulates of modern law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law (IHL) is that the choice of weapons by fighting parties is not unlimited. Thus, in order to ensure excessive harm is not inflicted, certain weapons are prohibited or their use is restricted. Although every case is quite unique, limitations related to weapons attest to the fact that effects of ordinary use of those weapons were deemed incompatible with the requirements of IHL. This article examines the potential for regulation of lethal autonomous weapons, while at the same time drawing upon lessons from the past. The analysis covers various ways how IHL restricts the choice of means of warfare – formal regulation, application of customary rules and principles to a weapon, and legal weapons review – all of which offer valuable insights on how to accommodate rising legal uncertainty over autonomous weapons. In this respect, the ‘headliner’ of World War II, the nuclear weapon, serves as an exceptional example that some weapons bring about unparalleled regulatory challenges. Like atom bomb, lethal autonomous weapons mark revolutionary changes in warfare. Yet, this article is to confirm applicability and adaptability of IHL to any new weapon, including an autonomous one.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从过去的经验教训中汲取未来的武器
现代武装冲突法或国际人道主义法的关键假设之一是交战各方对武器的选择不是无限制的。因此,为了确保不造成过分的伤害,某些武器被禁止或限制其使用。虽然每一个案件都是非常独特的,但与武器有关的限制证明了这样一个事实,即普通使用这些武器的后果被认为不符合国际人道法的要求。本文探讨了监管致命自主武器的潜力,同时吸取了过去的教训。该分析涵盖了国际人道法限制作战手段选择的各种方式——正式规定、习惯规则和原则对武器的适用以及对武器的法律审查——所有这些都为如何适应自主武器日益增加的法律不确定性提供了宝贵的见解。在这方面,第二次世界大战的“头条新闻”,核武器,作为一个例外的例子,一些武器带来了无与伦比的监管挑战。像原子弹一样,致命的自主武器标志着战争的革命性变化。然而,本文旨在确认国际人道法对任何新型武器的适用性和适应性,包括自主武器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DOMESTIC REFORMS TOWARDS STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW, IN GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, AND UKRAINE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: WESTERN AND ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES SHOULD THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DEVELOP A POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE CONDITIONS FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF NATURAL PERSONS: WHICH BALTIC STATE IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FOR BANKRUPTCY? WHAT CAN FRANCE LEARN FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC’S APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF WEARING (ISLAMIC) RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1