No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Emerging military technologies applied to urban warfare
ICRC, Programme on the Regulation of Emerging Military Technologies, Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law, 21–22 March 2018
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 March 2019
Extract
The roundtable on “Emerging Military Technologies Applied to Urban Warfare” brought together governmental, military and academic experts from various disciplines, including law, ethics, political science, philosophy, engineering and strategic studies. Over two days, experts from across Australia considered three areas of emerging technology and their intersection with urban warfare: cyber-capabilities, new robotics and autonomous weapons, and human modification technologies. In the final session, the roundtable discussed the influence of new technologies on military and strategic decision-making processes, with a focus on the implications in urban environments.
- Type
- Reports and documents
- Information
- International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 99 , Issue 906: Conflict in Syria , December 2017 , pp. 1161 - 1174
- Copyright
- Copyright © icrc 2019
Footnotes
IHL symposium report
This report is a summary of an IHL symposium and does not necessarily represent the views of the ICRC, the Program on the Regulation of Emerging Military Technologies, or the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law. Special thanks to Emily Defina for her work in preparing this report.
References
1 Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law: Professor Alison Duxbury, Sqn Ldr Anthony Erman, Col. Arun Lambert, Ms Grace Corbiau, Dr Robert Mathews. Australian Defence College: Dr Michael Evans. Australian National University: Associate Professor David Letts, Dr Adam Henschke. Australian Red Cross: Ms Isabel Robinson, Ms Kylie Leach. Griffith University: Dr Samuli Haataja. ICRC: Mr Leonard Blazeby, Ms Ellen Policinski, Ms Georgia Hinds, Ms Emily Defina. University of Melbourne: Professor Tim McCormack, Dr Suelette Dreyfus, Dr Tim McFarland, Ms Kobi Leins, Ms Natalia Jevglevskaja, Mr Simon McKenzie. University of New South Wales: Dr Deane Peter-Baker, Dr Jai Galliott. University of Queensland: Dr Rain Liivoja. University of Tasmania: Ms Natalie Nunn. Brigham Young University: Dr Eric Talbot Jensen. With thanks to the governmental and military experts who participated under Chatham House rules.
2 See, further, Schmitt, Michael, “Precision Attack and International Humanitarian Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 859, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 US Cyber Command, “Achieve and Maintain Cyberspace Superiority: Command Vision for US Cyber Command”, March 2018, available at: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4419681/Command-Vision-for-USCYBERCOM-23-Mar-18.pdf (all internet references were accessed in July 2018).
4 See ICRC, “International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 97, No. 900, 2015, pp. 1473–1475Google Scholar.
5 See Brad Smith, “The Need for a Digital Geneva Convention”, Microsoft On the Issues, 14 February 2017, available at: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2017/02/14/need-digital-geneva-convention/.
6 Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “Australia's International Cyber Engagement Strategy”, October 2017, available at: http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/cyber-affairs/aices/pdf/DFAT%20AICES_AccPDF.pdf.
7 ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, 26 November 1984.
8 ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005.
9 See Sarah Marsh, “US Joins UK in Blaming Russia for NotPetya Cyber-Attack”, The Guardian, 15 February 2018, available at: www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/15/uk-blames-russia-notpetya-cyber-attack-ukraine.
10 See, for example, the tendency of some States to discredit reports by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which could be considered as a model for such an investigative body.
11 See, for example, Grossman, David, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Back Bay Books, New York, 1995, Section III and Section IV Ch. 3Google Scholar.
12 The ICRC has proposed that “autonomous weapon system” is an umbrella definition for any weapon system with autonomy in the critical functions of selecting and attacking targets. See ICRC, Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Meeting of Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, 11–15 April 2016: Views of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on Autonomous Weapon System[s], Geneva, 11 April 2016, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/views-icrc-autonomous-weapon-system. See also ICRC, “Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law”, 31 January 2018, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/autonomous-weapon-systems-under-international-humanitarian-law.
13 See ICRC, “Towards Limits on Autonomy in Weapon Systems”, Statement, 9 April 2018, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/towards-limits-autonomous-weapons.
14 Noting that there are exceptions for certain acts such as rape and sexual slavery: see International Criminal Court, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06-1962, 15 June 2017. See also Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2016, Art. 3, paras 547–549Google Scholar.
15 CCW, Protocol IV (Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons), 13 October 1995, Art. 1.
16 UK Supreme Court, R (on the Application of Smith) (FC) (Respondent) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant) and Another, [2010] UKSC 29, 30 June 2010.