International Review of the Red Cross最新文献

As usage of military artificial intelligence (AI) expands, so will anti-AI countermeasures, known as adversarials. International humanitarian law offers many protections through its obligations in attack, but the nature of adversarials generates ambiguity regarding which party (system user or opponent) should incur attacker responsibilities. This article offers a cognitive framework for legally analyzing adversarials. It explores the technical, tactical and legal dimensions of adversarials, and proposes a model based on foreseeable harm to determine when legal responsibility should transfer to the countermeasure's author. The article provides illumination to the future combatant who ponders, before putting on their adversarial sunglasses: “Am I conducting an attack?”

The notion of solidarity, although not new to the humanitarian sector, has re-emerged in recent discussions about effective and ethical humanitarian action, particularly in contexts such as Ukraine and Myanmar where the traditional humanitarian principles have been facing certain pressures. Because solidarity appears as a good but can also involve selectivity and privilege, and because it risks continued militarism and normalization of civilians participating within that militarism, the notion of solidarity merits rich and rigorous thinking. This article explores how the notion of solidarity is being utilized by those currently re-emphasizing its importance and what it might mean in practice in today's humanitarian contexts. The article argues that if solidary action involves not only a political stance but solidary working methods, the recent calls for solidarity demand respect for the variety of principles and practices within the humanitarian ecosystem, while nevertheless upholding mutual obligations owed within that professional community – that is, within careful limits as to what is considered humanitarian action.

The protection of non-combatants in times of autonomous warfare raises the question of the timeliness of the international protective emblem. (Fully) Autonomous weapon systems are often launched from a great distance, and there may be no possibility for the operators to notice protective emblems at the point of impact; therefore, such weapon systems will need to have a way to detect protective emblems and react accordingly. In this regard, the present contribution suggests a cross-frequency protective emblem. Technical deployment is considered, as well as interpretation by methods of machine learning. Approaches are explored as to how software can recognize protective emblems under the influence of various boundary conditions. Since a new protective emblem could also be misused, methods of distribution are considered, including encryption and authentication of the received signal. Finally, ethical aspects are examined.

In situations of armed conflict, access to digital technology can save lives. However, the digitalization of armed conflict also brings new threats for civilians. Over the past decade, digital technologies have been used in armed conflict to disrupt critical civilian infrastructure and services, to incite violence against civilian populations, and to undermine humanitarian relief efforts. Moreover, in ever-more interdependent digital and physical environments, civilians and civilian infrastructure are not only in the crosshairs of hostile operations but also increasingly drawn upon to support military operations, blurring the lines between what is military and what is civilian.

Conceptually rooted in the efforts to ban indiscriminate weapons and both their immediate and long-term effects, humanitarian mine action and humanitarian disarmament operations have developed significantly since 1988, when the United Nations first took on work on mine action operations for the protection and benefit of local communities. A large part of those operations has been carried out by humanitarian disarmament NGOs such as the Mines Advisory Group (MAG), one of the first organizations to be established on this issue. Drawing on MAG's experience and perspective, this article explores how the humanitarian principles apply to humanitarian disarmament operations. The aim of the article is to show that as an operator on the humanitarian–development nexus, MAG considers the four humanitarian principles as a critical and necessary part of its reference framework due to the influence of the humanitarian disarmament framework, even when operating in the development space. All in all, the case of humanitarian disarmament and MAG's experience are good examples to illustrate where the humanitarian horizon is extended because of long-terms serious needs, and that humanitarian principles remain essential to keep the focus on the needs of affected populations.

International humanitarian law (IHL) does not address business entities, except in situations where they directly participate in hostilities, and there is no reference to business actors in the International Committee of the Red Cross's recent Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict. Yet, there has been an increasing reaffirmation of specific “duties”, “obligations” or “responsibilities” imposed on private companies operating in conflict zones. For instance, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights suggest that business entities should respect IHL rules in addition to human rights during armed conflicts, and the third revised draft of the international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises refers to IHL as an interpretative framework of human rights obligations of States and businesses. The International Law Commission's 2022 Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment during Armed Conflicts are even more specific, providing that corporations should exercise due diligence concerning the protection of the environment when acting in conflict-affected areas. However, these references to IHL as applicable to business activities remain vague and lack elaboration. This paper intends to close this gap by clarifying whether and, if so, the extent to which IHL imposes environmental obligations upon private companies in conflict situations. It submits that business entities bear environmental duties during armed conflicts deriving from IHL rules and other complementary sources of international law. The paper further discusses the content of the obligation of business entities not to harm the environment as well as their due diligence obligation.

To encourage further interrogation of the language of “survivor-centredness” in the field of conflict-related sexual violence, this article offers a case study of efforts to build and intensify more survivor-centred pedagogy for use in the training of humanitarian workers seeking to address sexual violence in conflict and emergency settings. Set against the backdrop of a literature review of existing usages, it builds on key aspects of an earlier evaluation in which all three authors were involved in different capacities.