Advertisement

The Principle of Discrimination in Twenty First Century Warfare

  • Michael N. SchmittEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the international humanitarian law principle of discrimination in the context of likely twenty first century warfare. The principle requires that those engaged in hostilities distinguish between civilians (and their property) and military objectives. The continued viability of the norm in light of future methods and means of warfare, which arguably constitute a “revolution in military affairs”, is an open question. In some cases, future warfare will encumber compliance. In others, new methods and means of warfare will make greater discrimination possible. The chapter concludes with tentative suggestions on how to soften the impact of any potentially negative trends.

Keywords

Supra Note Armed Conflict International Criminal Court Incidental Injury Geneva Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Abbreviations

AEF

Air expeditionary force

AWACS

Airborne warning and control system

GNP

Gross national product

ICC

International Criminal Court

ICRC

International Committee of the Red Cross

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NBC

Nuclear, biological, and chemical

RMA

Revolution in military affairs

THAAD

Theater high altitude area defense

UN

United Nations

UNOSOM

United Nations Operations in Somalia

UNPROFOR

United Nations Protected Force

UNSCOM

United Nations Special Commission

References

  1. Anderson G (1995) Unosom II: not failure, not success. In: Donald, Daniel CF, Bradd C, Hayes (eds) Beyond Traditional Peacekeeping 267–273Google Scholar
  2. Arsanjani MH (1999) The Rome statute of the international criminal court. 93 Am J Int L 22Google Scholar
  3. Brody H (1991) Great expectations: why technological predictions go awry. Tech Rev Google Scholar
  4. Capaccio T (1997) GAO questions U.S air power impact on Gulf War. Def Wk Google Scholar
  5. Chandler RW (1998) Counterforce: locating and destroying weapons of mass destruction’ (USAF Academy Institute for National Security Studies Occasional Paper 21)Google Scholar
  6. Cohen EA (1996) A Revolution in Warfare. Foreign Aff Google Scholar
  7. Cook III JW et al (1995) Non-Lethal weapons: technologies, legalities, and potential policies. Airpower J Special EdGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper P (1996) US Develops army of tiny robots. Def News November 11–17Google Scholar
  9. Cordesman AH (1992) Compensating for smaller forces: adjusting ways and means through technology. U.S Army War C Third Ann Conf Strategy 1Google Scholar
  10. Crawford JW (1997) The law of noncombatant immunity and the targeting of national electrical power systems. Fletcher F World Aff Google Scholar
  11. D’Amato A (1998) Megatrends in the use of force. In: Schmitt MN, Leslie C. Green (eds) The law of armed conflict: into the next millennium 1 Google Scholar
  12. Demulinen F (1987) Handbook on the law of war for armed forces, pp 3–4Google Scholar
  13. DiNardo RL, Hughes DJ (1995) Some cautionary thoughts on information warfare. Airpower J Winter 75Google Scholar
  14. Dinstein Y (1998) The universality principle and war crimes. In: Schmitt MN, Green LC (eds) The law of armed conflict: into the next millennium 1Google Scholar
  15. Doswald-Beck L (1998) Implementation of international humanitarian law in future wars. In: Schmitt MN, Green LC (eds) The law of armed conflict: into the next millennium 1Google Scholar
  16. Drew DM (1987) Technology and the american way of war: worshipping a false idol? Am Force J Logistics Winter Google Scholar
  17. Dunant (1862) Souvenir de solferinoGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan JC (1998) A primer on the employment of non-lethal weapons. 45 Naval L Rev 1Google Scholar
  19. Dunlap CJ Jr (1996) How we lost the high-tech war of 2007: a warning from the future. Wkly Standard Google Scholar
  20. Falk RA (1997) Nuclear weapons, internatiuonal law and the world court: a historic encounter. 91 Am J Int L 64Google Scholar
  21. Fenrick WJ (1982) The role of proportionality and protocol I in conventional warfare. 98 Mil L Rev 91Google Scholar
  22. Fitzsimonds JR (1995) The coming military revolution: opportunities and risks. ParametersGoogle Scholar
  23. Gardam JG (1993) Proportionality and force in international law. 87 Am J Int’l L 391Google Scholar
  24. Geldman B (1991) US bombs missed 70% of the time; “Smart” munitions far more accurate. Wash Post Google Scholar
  25. Goure D (1993) Is there a military-technical revolution in America’s future? Wash Q Autumn Google Scholar
  26. Graham B (1998a) Anti missile systems’ costs test US ability to pay, general says. Wash Post Google Scholar
  27. Graham B (1998b) New weapons give navy top air role this time. Wash Post Google Scholar
  28. Gray CS (1996) The influence of space power upon history. 15 Comp Strategy 293–297Google Scholar
  29. Greenwood C (1998) The Law of Weaponry at the Start of the New Millennium. In: Schmitt MN, Green LC (eds) The law of armed conflict: into the next millennium 1 Google Scholar
  30. Grunawalt R et al (eds) (1996) 69 US Naval war college international law studies, protection of the environment during armed conflictGoogle Scholar
  31. Hampson F (1992) Proportionality and necessity in the Gulf conflict. Proc 86th Annual Meet Am Soc’y Int L 45 53–54Google Scholar
  32. Harmon CC (1991) “Are We Beasts?”: Churchill and the moral question of world war II “Area Bombing”Google Scholar
  33. Human rights watch (1991) Needless deaths in the Gulf WarGoogle Scholar
  34. Huntington SP (1993) The clash of civilizations? Foreign AffGoogle Scholar
  35. Implementing limitations on the use of force: the doctrine of proportionality and necessity (1992) Proc 86th Annual Meet Am Soc’y Int L 39Google Scholar
  36. Infeld DL (1992) Precision-guided munitions demonstrated their pinpoint accuracy in desert storm; But is a country obligated to use precision technology to minimize collateral civilian injury and damage? 26 Geo Wash J Int L Econ 109Google Scholar
  37. Institute for national strategic studies (1996) Strategic Assessment Google Scholar
  38. Jankowitsch P (1992) Legal aspects of military space activities. In: Jasentuliyana N (ed) Space law: development and scope 143 Google Scholar
  39. Jezior BA (1997) The revolutionized warfighter circa 2025Google Scholar
  40. Johnson SE, Libicki MC (eds) (1995) Dominant battlespace knowledgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Joint chiefs of staff (1997) Concept for future joint operations: expanding joint vision 2010Google Scholar
  42. Kahn PW (1993) Lessons for international law from the Gulf War. 45 Stan L Rev 425Google Scholar
  43. Krepinevich AF (1995) Cavalry to computer: the pattern of military revolutions: In: Naval War college faculty (eds) 2nd ed Strategy force plan 430Google Scholar
  44. Levie H (1998) An optimist looks at the law of war in the twenty-first century. In: Schmitt MN, Green LC (eds) The law of armed conflict: into the next millennium 1Google Scholar
  45. Libicki MC (1996) Information and nuclear RMAs compared. Nat Def U Strategic F No 82 http://wwvv.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum82.html (visited Apr 15 1999)
  46. Lohr S (1996) Ready, Aim, Zap. NY TimFsGoogle Scholar
  47. Matheson MJ (1987) Session one: the united states position on the relation of customary international law to the 1977 protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 2 Am U J Int’l L Pol 419Google Scholar
  48. Matthews W (1998) New bombs penetrate, incinerate, air force times, February. 16Google Scholar
  49. McKenzie KF (1995) Beyond luddites and magicians: examining the MTR, parameters summer Google Scholar
  50. Meron T (1998) War crimes law for the late twenty-first century. In: Schmitt MN, Green LC (eds) The law of armed conflict: into the next millennium 1Google Scholar
  51. Morgan RA (1994) Military use of commercial satellites: a new look at the outer space treaty and “Peaceful Purposes.” 60 J Am L Comm 237Google Scholar
  52. Munro N (1995) Our electronic achilles’ heel. Wash Posr Wkly Ed August 14–20Google Scholar
  53. Nanda VP (1998) The establishment of a permanent international criminal court. 20 Hum Rts Q 413Google Scholar
  54. Normand R, Jochnick C (1994) The legitimization of violence: A critical analysis of the gulf war. 35 Harv J Int L 387Google Scholar
  55. Oeter S (1995) Methods and means of combat. In: Dieter Fleck (ed) The handbook of humanitarian law in armed conflicts 105Google Scholar
  56. Office of the secretary of defense (1996) Proliferation: Threat And ResponseGoogle Scholar
  57. Office of the under secretary of defense for acquisition and technology (1996) Report of the defense science board task force on information warfare defense Nov 1996Google Scholar
  58. Owens WA (1995) The emerging system of systems, Proceedings May 1995Google Scholar
  59. Owens MT (1996) Planning for future conflict: strategy vs “Fad.” Strategic Rev Summer 1996Google Scholar
  60. Parks WH (1990) Air war and the law of war. 32 Am Force L Rev 1 113–145Google Scholar
  61. Parks H (1997) The protection of civilians from air warfare. Israel Y B Hum Rts 65Google Scholar
  62. Pasternak D (1997) Wonder weapons. U.S News World Rep July 7Google Scholar
  63. Pine A (1997) Revolutionary high-tech military isn’t ready for the world’s battlefields Providence J January 5Google Scholar
  64. Ricks TE (1997) Information-warfare defense is urged. Wall St J Jan 6Google Scholar
  65. Roberts A (1998) Implementation of the laws of war in late-twentieth-century conflicts. In: Schmitt MN, Green LC (eds) The law of armed conflict: into the next millennium 1 Google Scholar
  66. Rosenblad E (1979) International humanitarian law of armed conflict: some aspects of the principle of distinction and related problemsGoogle Scholar
  67. Sandoz Y et al (eds) (1987) Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949Google Scholar
  68. Scheffer DJ (1999) The united states and the international criminal court. 93 Am J Int L 12Google Scholar
  69. Schindler D, Taman J (eds) (1988) The laws of armed conflictsGoogle Scholar
  70. Schmitt MN (1997) Green war: an assessment of the environmental law of international armed conflict. 22 Yale J Int L 1Google Scholar
  71. Schmitt MN (1998) The international court of justice and the use of nuclear weapons. Naval War College Rev Spring 1998Google Scholar
  72. Schmitt MN (1999a) Computer network attack and the use of force in international law: thoughts on a normative framework. 37 Colum J Transnat’l L 885Google Scholar
  73. Schmitt MN (1999b) War and the environment: fault lines in the prescriptive landscape. Archiv Des Volkerrechts March 1999Google Scholar
  74. Schmitt MN, Green LC (eds) (1998) The law of armed conflict: into the next millennium 1Google Scholar
  75. Schneider GR (1997) Nonlethal weapons: considerations for decision makers (Jan 1997) Arms control, disarmament, and international security occasional paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 9–10Google Scholar
  76. Secretary of defense (1998) Annual report to the president and the congressGoogle Scholar
  77. Shelat A (1994) An empty revolution: MTR expectations fall short. Harv Int Rev Summer 1994Google Scholar
  78. Sinding S (1999) Now we can be serious about population politics. Int Herald Trib February 8 1999Google Scholar
  79. Sofaer AD (1988) Agora: the I.I.S. decision not to ratify protocol I to the Geneva Conventions on the protection of war victims. 82 Alm J Int L 784Google Scholar
  80. The international institute for strategic studies (1997) The military balance 1997/98Google Scholar
  81. Thieret JE et al (1996) Hit Em Where it Hurts: Strategic Attack in 2025 in 3 Am University 2025 White Papers 173Google Scholar
  82. Turner RF (1998) Nuclear weapons and the world court: the ICJ’s advisory opinion and its significance for US strategic doctrine. In: Michael N, Schmitt (ed) The law of military operations 309Google Scholar
  83. U.S. Air Force (1996) Global engagement: a vision for the 21st centuryGoogle Scholar
  84. U.S. Army (1996) Army Vision 2010Google Scholar
  85. U.S. Department of defense (1992) Report to congress on the conduct of the persian Gulf War (Title V Report to Congress)Google Scholar
  86. U.S. Government Accounting Office (1995) Tactical Aarcraft: concurrency in development and production of F-22 aircraft should be reduced (visited Apr 27 1999) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cg..txt&directory=diskb/wais/data/gao
  87. U.S. Navy (1994) Forward From The SeaGoogle Scholar
  88. U.S. Space command (1997) Vision for 2010Google Scholar
  89. United nations (1993) Trends in international distribution of gross world productGoogle Scholar
  90. United nations (1996) The blue helmets: a review of United Nations peace keeping 285–318,511–42 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  91. Usaf scientific advisory board (1995) New world vistas. Air and space power for the 21st century (summary vol.1995)Google Scholar
  92. Waller D (1995) Onward cyber soldiers TIME August 21Google Scholar
  93. Weiner T, Myers SL (1998) Flaws in US Account raise questions on strike in sudan. N Y TIMES August 29Google Scholar
  94. White House (1997) A national security strategy for a new century (visited April 27 1999) http://www.jya.com/nss.htm
  95. Wright RG (1991) Noncombatant immunity: a case study in the relation between international law and morality. 67 Notre Dame L Rev 335Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United States Naval War CollegeNewportUSA

Personalised recommendations