Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:25:12.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technological change and the evolution of the law of war*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2016

Rain Liivoja
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Advances in military technology have led many, including the developers of such technology, to propose new regulation. International lawyers have extensively examined the adequacy of the existing law to address emerging technology, but they have devoted relatively little attention in these analyses to the prior development of the law as a result of, or despite, technological change. This essay highlights two challenges that those wishing to undertake such an exercise might encounter. The first of these is the general paucity of serious engagement with the history of international law applicable in armed conflicts and the perpetuation of a particular “origin myth” of international humanitarian law. The second challenge has to do with the controversies about the impact of technology on society in general, and the impact of military technology on warfare in particular. Nevertheless, the essay concludes by pointing towards some of the insight that might be gained from a more history-conscious analysis of the relationship between technology and law in the military context.

Keywords

law of warlaw of armed conflictinternational humanitarian lawarms controlmilitary technologylaw and technology theorylegal history
Type
A century of warfare
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 97 , Issue 900: The evolution of warfare , December 2015 , pp. 1157 - 1177
Copyright
Copyright © icrc 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fergus Hanson, “Waging War in Peacetime: Cyber Attacks and International Norms”, The Lowy Interpreter, 20 October 2015, available at: www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/10/20/Waging-war-in-peacetime-Cyber-attacks-and-international-norms.aspx (all internet references were accessed in October 2016).

2 Michael C. Horowitz and Matthew Fuhrmann, “Droning on: Explaining the Proliferation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles”, 1 October 2015, available at: ssrn.com/abstract=2514339.

3 Moore, Wilbert E., “Introduction”, in Moore, Wilbert E. (ed.), Technology and Social Change, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1972, p. 5Google Scholar.

4 Massey, Garth, Ways of Social Change: Making Sense of Modern Times, 2nd ed., Sage, Los Angeles, 2015 Google Scholar.

5 See e.g. US Department of Defense, Law of War Manual, Washington DC, June 2015, para. 1.6.2; Mathews, Robert J. and McCormack, Timothy L. H., “The Influence of Humanitarian Principles in the Negotiation of Arms Control Treaties”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 81, No. 834, 1999, pp. 334–335 Google Scholar.

6 See especially Institute of International Law, “The Laws of War on Land”, Oxford, 9 September 1880; Hague Convention (IV) regarding the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 205 CTS 27, 18 October 1907 (entered into force 26 January 1910).

7 Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law: A Treatise, 8th ed., edited by Lauterpacht, Hersch, Company, David McKay, New York, pp. 340–345 Google Scholar.

8 Chris Weigant, “We Need a Geneva Convention on Cyber Warfare”, Huffington Post: The Blog, 28 October 2013, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/we-need-a-geneva-conventi_b_4171853.html; Karl Rauscher, “It's Time to Write the Rules of Cyberwar”, IEEE Spectrum, 27 November 2013, available at: spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/its-time-to-write-the-rules-of-cyberwar.

9 See e.g. Drohnen-Kampagne, available at: drohnen-kampagne.de; Ban Weaponized Drones from the World, available at: act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6180.

10 Micah Zenko and Sarah Kreps, Limiting Armed Drone Proliferation, Council of Foreign Relations, Washington DC, 2014.

11 “Autonomous Weapons: An Open Letter from AI & Robotics Researchers”, available at: futureoflife.org/open-letter-autonomous-weapons.

12 Braden R. Allenby and Carolyn S. Mattick, “Why We Need New ‘Rules of War’”, Slate: Future Tense, 12 November 2012, available at: www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/11/drones_cyberconflict_and_other_military_technologies_require_we_rewrite.html.

13 Alberto R. Gonzales, “Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban”, Memorandum for the President, 25 January 2002, reproduced in Greenberg, Karen J. and Dratel, Joshua L. (eds), The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005, pp. 118–121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Allenby, Braden R., “Are New Technologies Undermining the Laws of War?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2014, p. 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Tranter, Kieran, “The Law and Technology Enterprise: Uncovering the Template to Legal Scholarship on Technology”, Law, Innovation & Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Ibid ., p. 69.

17 Bostrom, Nick, “Technological Revolutions: Ethics and Policy in the Dark”, in Nigel M. de S. Cameron and Mitchell, M. Ellen (eds), Nanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century, Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2007, p. 131Google Scholar; Brownsword, Roger, Rights, Regulation and the Technological Revolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, p. 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 K. Tranter, above note 15, p. 69.

19 Ibid ., p. 70.

20 See, in relation to cyber-warfare, Haataja, Samuli, “Technology, Violence and Law: Cyber Attacks and Uncertainty in International Law”, in Kuusisto, Rauno and Kurkinen, Erkki (eds), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security, ACPI, Sonning Common, 2013, pp. 317–318 Google Scholar.

21 See e.g. the Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare, the Journal of Information Warfare, and the International Journal of Cyber Warfare & Terrorism.

22 However, see, for a more integrative approach, Schmitt, Michael N., “War, Technology and the Law of Armed Conflict”, in Helm, Anthony M. (ed), The Law of War in the 21st Century: Weaponry and the Use of Force, US Naval War College, Newport, 2006 Google Scholar.

23 See especially Saxon, Dan (ed.), International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2013 Google Scholar; Nasu, Hitoshi and McLaughlin, Robert (eds), New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict, TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 94, No. 866, 2012, pp. 457–817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Utah Law Review, No. 5, 2013, pp. 1215–1356 Google Scholar; International Law Studies, Vol. 91, No. 1, 2014, pp. 468–516 Google Scholar, 540–640, 699–728; Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1–238 Google Scholar.

24 See Hayashi, Nobuo, “Military Necessity as Normative Indifference”, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2013 Google Scholar.

25 K. Tranter, above note 15, p. 69.

26 O'Connell, Robert L., Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons and Aggression, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989, pp. 95–96 Google Scholar, 274–275; Dupuy, R. Ernest and Dupuy, Trevor N., The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 BC to the Present, 4th ed., Harper Collins, New York, 1993, pp. 307–308 Google Scholar, 1123–1125; 1369–1371, 1485–1486.

27 R. L. O'Connell, above note 26, pp. 95–96; R. E. Dupuy and T. N. Dupuy, above note 26, pp. 307–308 (also referring to the broader attempts by the Church to limit warfare through the notions of “peace of God” and “truce of God”).

28 Archer, Christon I., Ferris, John R., Herwig, Holger H. and Travers, Timothy H. E., World History of Warfare, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 2002, pp. 422–423 Google Scholar.

29 Keegan, John, A History of Warfare, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1999, especially pp. 382–383 Google ScholarPubMed.

30 Roberts, Adam, “Against War”, in Townshend, Charles (ed.), The Oxford History of Modern War, new ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005 Google Scholar.

31 Keen, Maurice, The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1965 Google Scholar; Meron, Theodor, “Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth and the Law of War”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 86, No. 1, 1992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meron, Theodor, Bloody Constraint: War and Chivalry in Shakespeare, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998 Google Scholar.

32 Best, Geoffrey, Humanity in Warfare, Columbia University Press, New York, 1980 Google Scholar; Best, Geoffrey, War and Law since 1945, Clarendon, Oxford, 1994 Google Scholar.

33 Witt, John Fabian, Lincoln's Code: The Laws of War in American History, Free Press, New York, 2012 Google Scholar.

34 Howard, Michael, Andreopoulos, George J. and Shulman, Mark R. (eds), The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994 Google Scholar.

35 Gillespie, Alexander, A History of the Laws of War, 3 vols, Hart, Oxford, 2011 Google Scholar.

36 Neff, Stephen C., War and the Law of Nations: A General History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Mark Moyar, Arms Control and Disarmament, Oxford Bibliographies, 19 April 2015, available at: www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199791279/obo-9780199791279-0002.xml.

38 See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, 23 May 1969 (entered into force 27 January 1980), Art. 31(3)(b) (providing that “any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation” must be taken into account in the interpretation of the treaty).

39 Ibid ., Art. 32.

40 See e.g. G. Best, War and Law, above note 32, pp. 135–136.

41 Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order No. 100, 24 April 1863; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 129 CTS 361, 22 August 1864 (entered into force 22 June 1865); Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles under 400 Grammes Weight, 138 CTS 297, 11 December 1868 (entered into force upon signature).

42 As always, there are exceptions: for example, Leslie Green and Gerald Draper gave a lot of thought to the pre-modern development on the law of war.

43 Levie, Howard S., “History of the Law of War on Land”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 82, No. 838, 2000 Google Scholar.

44 S. C. Neff, above note 36, p. 65.

45 Ibid ., pp. 112–113.

46 Koskenniemi, Martti, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, p. 88Google Scholar.

47 H. S. Levie, above note 43, p. 340; S. C. Neff, above note 36, p. 113.

48 M. Koskenniemi, above note 46, p. 87 (describing the Lieber code as “a compilation of humanitarian principles taken from publicists from Grotius onwards”).

49 Alexander, Amanda, “A Short History of International Humanitarian Law”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Meron, Theodor, “The Humanization of Humanitarian Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, No. 2, 2000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 At least Google Books Ngram Viewer, available at: books.google.com/ngrams, suggests that the phrase “humanitarian law” entered the corpus of books in the 1970s.

52 See e.g. Robinson, Paul, Military Honour and the Conduct of War: From Ancient Greece to Iraq, Routledge, London, 2006 Google Scholar.

53 On the impact of chivalry on the contemporary law of war, see, e.g., Liivoja, Rain, “Chivalry without a Horse: Military Honour and the Modern Law of Armed Conflict”, in Liivoja, Rain and Saumets, (eds), The Law of Armed Conflict: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Tartu University Press, Tartu, 2012 Google Scholar.

54 S. C. Neff, above note 36.

55 Ibid ., p. 2.

56 See, in particular, Koops, Bert-Jaap, “Should ICT Regulation Be Technology-Neutral?”, in Koops, Bert-Jaap et al. (eds), Starting Points for ICT Regulation: Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-liners, Asser, The Hague, 2006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Hague Convention (IV) regarding the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 205 CTS 277, 18 October 1907 (entered into force 26 January 1910), Annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (“Hague Regulations”), Art. 23(a).

58 Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments, annexed 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, 1342 UNTS 168, 10 October 1980 (entered into force 2 December 1983).

59 See especially Geneva Convention I, Art. 36(2); Additional Protocol I, Annex I, Arts 7(1) and 9(1).

60 See especially Geneva Convention I, Art. 36(3)–(4); Additional Protocol I, Arts 29–30; Additional Protocol I, Annex I, Arts 13–14.

61 B.-J. Koops, above note 56.

62 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (“Additional Protocol I”), Art. 35(1).

63 Hague Regulations, Art. 23(e); Additional Protocol I, Art. 35(2).

64 Additional Protocol I, Art. 35(2).

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

66 Additional Protocol I, Art. 36.

67 B.-J. Koops, above note 56.

68 Chris Reed, “Taking Sides on Technology Neutrality”, SCRIPT-ed, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2007, p. 269.

69 See R. J. Mathews and T. L. H. McCormack, above note 5.

70 For a particularly bleak view, see Chris af Jochnick and Normand, Roger, “The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical History of the Laws of War,” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1994, especially pp. 66–68 Google Scholar (regarding exploding bullets) and pp. 73–74 (balloons). See also R. Liivoja, above note 53, pp. 84–86 (concerning poison and crossbows).

71 See Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, annexed 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, 1380 UNTS 370, 13 October 1995 (entered into force 30 July 1998).

72 The question whether technology embodies a set of values or is, rather, value-neutral, adds a further dimension to the problem. See, e.g., Feenberg, Andrew, “What Is Philosophy of Technology?”, in Dakers, John R. (ed.), Defining Technological Literacy, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2006 Google Scholar.

73 Martin van Creveld, Technology and War: From 2000 BC to the Present, revised ed., The Free Press, New York, 1991, pp. 1 and 3.

74 Roland, Alex, “War and Technology”, FPRI FootNotes, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2009 Google Scholar, available at: www.fpri.org/articles/2009/02/war-and-technology.

75 For a recent discussion, see Collins, Jeffrey and Futter, Andrew (eds), Reassessing the Revolution in Military Affairs: Transformation, Evolution and Lessons Learnt, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Black, Jeremy, “The Revolution in Military Affairs: The Historian's Perspective”, The RUSI Journal, Vol. 154, No. 2, 2009, p. 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Boot, Max, War Made New: Technology, Warfare and the Course of History, 1500 to Today, Gotham, New York, 2006 Google Scholar.

78 Ibid ., pp. 17–105.

79 S. C. Neff, above note 36, pp. 74–75.

80 For an overview, see e.g. Fleck, Dieter, “Nuclear Weapons”, in Liivoja, Rain and McCormack, Tim (eds), Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict, Routledge, Abingdon, 2016 Google Scholar.

81 See declarations made on signature by the United Kingdom and the United States, and on ratification by Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom.

82 International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 105(2)(D).

83 For a discussion and further reference, see Gaudreau, Julie, “The Reservations to the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 84, No. 849, 2003 Google Scholar.

84 International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 105(2)(E).

85 Ibid .

86 See e.g. McCormack, Timothy L. H., “A non liquet on Nuclear Weapons: The ICJ Avoids the Application of General Principles of International Humanitarian Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 316, 1997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Akande, Dapo, “Nuclear Weapons, Unclear Law? Deciphering the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 68, 1997, pp. 208–210 Google Scholar.

87 Andrew L. Ross, “The Role of Nuclear Weapons in International Politics: A Strategic Perspective”, FPRI FootNotes, March 2009, available at: www.fpri.org/article/2009/03/the-role-of-nuclear-weapons-in-international-politics-a-strategic-perspective.

88 Mandel, Gregory N., “History Lessons for a General Theory of Law and Technology”, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2007, p. 552Google Scholar.

89 G. Best, Humanity in Warfare, above note 32, p. 62.

90 G. Best, War and Law, above note 32, p. 23.

91 Ibid ., p. 24.

92 For a discussion, see e.g. B.-J. Koops, above note 56; C. Reed, above note 68.

93 Hague Declaration (IV, 2) on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases, 187 CTS 453, 29 July 1899 (entered into force 4 September 1900).

94 See e.g. Kim Coleman, A History of Chemical Warfare, Springer, Berlin, 2005, pp. 27ff.

95 Ibid ., p. 14; see also Trumpener, Ulrich, “The Road to Ypres: The Beginning of Gas Warfare in World War I”, Journal of Modern History, Vol. 47, 1975, p. 468CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 K. Coleman, above note 95, pp. 16ff; see also U. Trumpener, above note 96, p. 468.

97 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 94 LNTS 65, 17 June 1925 (entered into force 8 February).

98 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1974 UNTS 45, 13 January 1993 (entered into force 29 April 1997), Art. I.

99 See ibid ., Arts II(1) and (2).

100 See ibid ., Annex on Chemicals.

101 M. N. Schmitt, above note 22, p. 142.

102 M. Boot, above note 77, pp. 107–201.

103 G. N. Mandel, above note 88, pp. 559–563.

104 See e.g. Singer, P. W., Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, Penguin Press, New York, 2009 Google Scholar, p. 46ff; Kreps, Sarah E., Drones: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, pp. 9–12 Google Scholar; see also Rain Liivoja, Kobi Leins and Tim McCormack, “Emerging Technologies of Warfare” in R. Liivoja and T. McCormack (eds), above note 80.

105 Carvin, Stephanie, “Getting Drones Wrong”, International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 This notion derives from Murphy, Thérèse, “Repetition, Revolution and Resonance”, in Murphy, Thérèse (ed.), New Technologies and Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, p. 8Google Scholar.

107 See Mike Croll, The History of Landmines, Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 1998, pp. 4–5.

108 Ibid ., pp. 10 and 15.

109 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices annexed 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, 1342 UNTS 168, 10 October 1980 (entered into force 2 December 1983).

110 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personal Mines and on the Destruction, 2056 UNTS 211, 18 September 1997 (entered into force 1 March 1999). See also Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II, as amended on 3 May 1996), annexed 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, 2048 UNTS 93, 3 May 1996 (entered into force 3 December 1998) (distinguishing between anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, and placing further restrictions on the use of the latter).

111 Christopher Coker, Future War, Polity, Cambridge, 2015, p. 15.

112 Ibid ., p. 29.

113 Ibid ., p. 28.

114 See in particular, R. L. O'Connell, above note 26; M. van Creveld, above note 73; M. Boot, above note 77.