Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Conundrum of New Technologies in the Law of Armed Conflict

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict

Abstract

This introductory chapter outlines the general relationship between technological development and the conduct of warfare in the historical context. It then introduces the objective of the book, which is to critically examine the potential legal challenges arising from the use of new technologies in warfare, and future directions of legal development. It proceeds on the premise that the fundamentally transformative impact of new technologies on the means and methods of warfare, and on the broader environment in which warfare is conducted, cannot be understood without specific characteristics of the technology and challenges each technology presents for both the law of armed conflict and the battlespace. Each chapter of this book is introduced in the broader context of the four thematic issues that emerged during the discussion among scholars and practitioners working in the field, held at the Workshop at the Australian National University in September 2012.

R. McLaughlin is Associate Professor and H. Nasu is Senior Lecturer at the ANU College of Law, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See generally, Boothby 2009, Chap. 20.

  2. 2.

    Decree of the Emperor Henry IV Concerning a Truce of God (1085), http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/dechenry.asp. Accessed 27 May 2013.

  3. 3.

    Canons of the Second Lateran Council (1139), para 29, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum10.htm. Accessed 27 May 2013.

  4. 4.

    See, Keen 1965; Meron 1994, which are two well-regarded studies of the law of war during the Middle Ages in Europe, although they do not specifically contain extensive analyses of weapons law issues. For a brief survey of elements of pre-nineteenth century weapons law, see, Boothby 2009, pp. 8–9.

  5. 5.

    St Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, In Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, 11 December 1868, 138 CTS 297 (entered into force 11 December 1868) (‘St Petersburg Declaration’), reproduced in Roberts and Guelff 2000, pp. 54–55.

  6. 6.

    Hague Declaration (II) on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases, 29 July 1899, 187 CTS 453 (entered into force 4 September 1900) (‘Hague Declaration II’), reproduced in Roberts and Guelff 2000, pp. 60–61; Hague Declaration (III) on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body, 29 July 1899, 187 CTS 459 (entered into force 4 September 1900) (‘Hague Declaration III’), reproduced in Roberts and Guelff 2000, pp. 64–65.

  7. 7.

    See, for example, Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annex to the Hague Convention (IV) Respective the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907, 205 CTS 277 (entered into force 26 January 1910) (‘Hague Regulations’); Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 17 June 1925, 94 LNTS 65 (entered into force 8 February 1928).

  8. 8.

    US War Department 1940, para 34.

  9. 9.

    Institute of International Law 1880.

  10. 10.

    Institute of International Law 1880, Article 8(a).

  11. 11.

    Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, as a member of the US delegation to the 1899 Hague Peace Conference, was instrumental in the defeat of a proposed prohibition on the use of projectiles the sole purpose of which was, on bursting, to spread asphyxiating or deleterious gases: Mahan 1899.

  12. 12.

    Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997, 2056 UNTS 211 (entered into force 1 March 1999).

  13. 13.

    Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 13 October 1995, 1380 UNTS 370 (entered into force 30 July 1998).

  14. 14.

    Convention on Cluster Munitions, 30 May 2008, 48 ILM 357 (2009) (entered into force 1 August 2010).

  15. 15.

    Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 171 (entered into force 2 December 1983).

  16. 16.

    Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, 10 April 1972, 1015 UNTS 163 (entered into force 26 March 1975).

  17. 17.

    Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, 13 September 1992, 1974 UNTS 317 (entered into force 29 April 1997).

  18. 18.

    Heyns 2013, para 118.

  19. 19.

    Schmitt (ed) 2013 (‘Tallinn Manual’).

  20. 20.

    The fundamentally important and highly influential San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Doswald-Beck et al. 1995) is arguably the modern template for this new soft law format.

  21. 21.

    For example, the enduring utility and status of US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard 1995.

  22. 22.

    O’Connell 1975, for example, Chaps. VI, VII, and XIII.

  23. 23.

    Dinniss 2012; Melzer 2011.

  24. 24.

    Saxon (ed) 2013; Mancini (ed) 2013; Heintschel von Heinegg and Beruto (eds) 2012; Schmitt and O’Donnell (eds) 2002; Lewer (ed) 2002.

  25. 25.

    See, for example, Journal of Conflict and Security Law (Volume 17, Issue 2, 2012), Israel Law Review (Volume 45, Issue 3, 2012), International Review of the Red Cross (Volume 94, Issue 886, 2012).

  26. 26.

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1), 12 December 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1979) (‘Additional Protocol I’).

  27. 27.

    For different ways of defining ‘dual-use’ technologies, see, for example, Forge 2010; Miller and Selgelid 2007.

  28. 28.

    As one expert observed during the Workshop, cyber capabilities can be categorised into deception, disruption, and suppression.

  29. 29.

    For a detailed analysis of the law, see especially, Boothby 2012.

  30. 30.

    See, for example, Turns 2012.

  31. 31.

    Cf Tsagourias 2012.

  32. 32.

    Heyns 2013, paras 75–81; Grut 2013.

  33. 33.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 July 2002), Article 30.

  34. 34.

    For discussion, see, Nasu and Faunce 2010, pp. 44–49.

  35. 35.

    Backstrom and Henderson 2012.

  36. 36.

    See also, Gogarty and Hagger 2008, p. 123.

  37. 37.

    There is also an additional concern about the ‘Kessler effect’, according to which space debris create more space debris to the point at which an orbit becomes entirely unusable: see, Kessler 2009; Kessler and Cour-Palais 1978.

  38. 38.

    Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 18 May 1977, 1108 UNTS 151 (entered into force 5 October 1978) (‘ENMOD Convention’).

  39. 39.

    For details, see, Chap. 8 by Blake and Chap. 11 by Faunce in this volume.

  40. 40.

    See, for example, European Union 2012, Article 2.

  41. 41.

    Notably, the Ottawa Process for the ban on anti-personnel mines and the Oslo Process on cluster munitions.

  42. 42.

    UN Office for Disarmament Affairs 2013.

  43. 43.

    For discussion, see, Boothby 2007, pp. 311–315.

  44. 44.

    See, for example, Human Rights Watch 2008, pp. 44–48 on reported cluster munition failure rates.

  45. 45.

    See, for example, Anderson 2000. Notable exceptions to this general conclusion, however, are environmental modification technologies, blind lasers and undetectable fragments.

  46. 46.

    Canadian National Defence 2003, para 202.7.

  47. 47.

    See, for example, Blum 2011.

  48. 48.

    See, for example, Rudesill 2007.

  49. 49.

    Kellenberger 2012, p. 27.

References

  • Anderson K (2000) The Ottawa Convention banning landmines, the role of international non-governmental organisations, and the idea of international civil society. Eur J Int Law 11:91–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backstrom A, Henderson I (2012) New capabilities in warfare: an overview of contemporary technological developments and the associated legal and engineering issues in Article 36 weapons reviews. Int Rev Red Cross 94:483–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum G (2011) On a differential law of war. Harv Int Law J 52:163–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothby WH (2007) The law of weaponry—is it adequate? In: Schmitt MN, Pejic J (eds) International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines, essays in honour of Yorum Dinstein. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 297–316

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boothby WH (2009) Weapons and the law of armed conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boothby WH (2012) The law of targeting. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian National Defence (2003) Law of armed conflict at the tactical and operational levels. http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/oplaw-loiop/loac-ddca-2004-eng.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2013

  • Dinniss HH (2012) Cyber warfare and the laws of war. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doswald-Beck L et al (1995) San Remo Manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. Cambridge University Press/International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2012) Revised draft: international code of conduct for outer space activities. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/1696642/12_06_05_coc_space_eu_revised_draft_working__document.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2013

  • Forge J (2010) A note on the definition of ‘dual use’. Sci Eng Ethics 16:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogarty B, Hagger M (2008) The laws of man over vehicles unmanned: the legal response to robotic revolution on sea, land and air. J Law Inf Sci 19:73–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Grut C (2013) The challenge of autonomous lethal robotics to international humanitarian law. J Confl Secur Law 18:5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heintschel von Heinegg W, Beruto GL (eds) (2012) International humanitarian law and new weapon technologies: 34th round table on current issues of international humanitarian law (Sanremo, 8th–10th September 2011). FrancoAngeli/International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Sanremo

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyns C (2013) Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions on lethal autonomous robotics. UN Doc A/HRC/23/47

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2008) Flooding South Lebanon: Israel’s use of cluster munitions in Lebanon in July and August 2006. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0208webwcover.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2013

  • Institute of International Law (1880) Oxford manual on the laws of war on land. http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=40371257507EBB71C12563CD002D6676&action=openDocument. Accessed 27 May 2013

  • Keen M (1965) Law of war in the late Middle Ages. Toronto University Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellenberger J (2012) Keynote address. In: Heintschel von Heinegg W, Beruto GL (eds) International humanitarian law and new weapon technologies: 34th round table on current issues of international humanitarian law (Sanremo, 8th–10th September 2011). FrancoAngeli/International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Sanremo, pp 23–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler DJ (2009) The Kessler Syndrome. http://webpages.charter.net/dkessler/files/KesSym.html. Accessed 29 May 2013

  • Kessler DJ, Cour-Palais BG (1978) Collision frequency of artificial satellites: the creation of a debris belt. J Geophys Res 83(A6):2637–2646

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewer N (ed) (2002) The future of non-lethal weapons: technologies, operations, ethics and law. Frank Cass, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahan AT (1899) Peace conference at The Hague 1899: Report to the United States Commission to the International Conference at the Hague, on Disarmament, etc., with Reference to Navies. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hag99-06.asp. Accessed 27 May 2013

  • Mancini F (ed) (2013) New technology and the prevention of violence and conflict. International Peace Institute, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2011) Cyberwarfare and international law. UNIDIR, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (1994) Henry’s wars and Shakespeare’s laws: perspectives on the law of war in the later Middle Ages. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller S, Selgelid MJ (2007) Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 13:523–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasu H, Faunce T (2010) Nanotechnology and the international law of weaponry: towards international regulation of nano-weapons. J Law Inf Sci 20:21–54

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell DP (1975) The influence of law upon sea power. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A, Guelff R (2000) Documents on the laws of war, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudesill DS (2007) Precision war and responsibility: transformational military technology and the duty of care under the laws of war. Yale J Int Law 32:517–545

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxon D (ed) (2013) International humanitarian law and the changing technology of war. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (ed) (2013) Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. International Group of Experts at the Invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN, O’Donnell BT (eds) (2002) Computer network attack and international law. Naval War College, Newport

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsagourias N (2012) Cyber attacks, self-defence and the problem of attribution. J Confl Secur Law 17:229–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turns D (2012) Cyber warfare and the notion of direct participation in hostilities. J Confl Secur Law 17:279–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (2013) The arms trade treaty. http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT. Accessed 27 May 2013

  • US Navy, US Marine Corps, and US Coast Guard (1995) The Commander’s handbook on the law of naval operations. NWP 1-14M

    Google Scholar 

  • US War Department (1940) Field Manual FM 27-10. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/rules_warfare-1940.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2013

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ANU College of Law, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Robert McLaughlin & Hitoshi Nasu

Authors
  1. Robert McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hitoshi Nasu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert McLaughlin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, The ANU College of Law Australian National University, Canberra, Aust Capital Terr, Australia

    Hitoshi Nasu

  2. ANU College of Law, The ANU College of Law Australian National University, Canberra, Aust Capital Terr, Australia

    Robert McLaughlin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McLaughlin, R., Nasu, H. (2014). Introduction: Conundrum of New Technologies in the Law of Armed Conflict. In: Nasu, H., McLaughlin, R. (eds) New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-933-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation