Lethal weapons technology The legal challenges in contemporary armed conflicts.pptx

Sure, here's a clearer version of the text:

This lecture will give an overview of the critical legal rules that govern the use of lethal weapons according to international humanitarian law. It will also address the challenges posed by technological advancements in complying with the rules of conduct during combat.

1. Lethal weapons technology The legal challenges in contemporary armed conflicts! Prof .Dr. Ahmed Aubais Alfatlawi Faculty of Law ,University of Kufa 23-12-2019 IHL Workshop for academics of Iraqi Universities Erbil: Kurdistan of Iraq

2. The concept of lethal weapons technology An electronic system associated with the activity of a weapon, completely or almost completely independent of human interference .... ", which is applicable when used on: Detect the target. Fix it.

3. Selected models of lethal weapons technology Drones

4. Autonomous weapons

5. Military Robots

6. cyber attack A cyber attack is a cyber operation , whether offensive of defensive ,that is reasonably expected to cause injury or death to persons or damage or restriction to objects , Tallinn Manual .pp.91-92.

7. Characteristics and advantages of lethal weapons technology Subjective / semi-autonomous, direction and processing (artificial intelligence) Remove the human from the steering platform Indirect human intervention (robot intelligence) The property of cognitive teaming between humans and the lethal combat program Speed in response Maneuverability Ability to hide and withstand extreme conditions

8. The risks of resorting to lethal weapons technology The ability to control is vague or weak. The ability to stabilize performance level (artificial intelligence) is uncertain. Not programmed to adapt with emergency combat situations (numeric command execution only). An electronic weapon-oriented program malfunction, will have catastrophic results The enemy's ability to carry out a cyber counterattack, will change the steering equation

9. Interaction between humans and deadly weapon technology Fully independent weapons technology ( guided missiles ) Human control is non-existent in emergency conditions, and it cannot be treated at the appropriate time.

10. Semi-autonomous lethal weapon technology (UAVs) Humans can control inappropriate time to face emergency conditions. The risk of using UAVs that detect and fix targets with non-human intervention.

11. The lethal weapons technology (Fighting robots) The robot can make a decision after direct human intervention the risk is the use of an autonomous robot that can detect and fix targets with non-human intervention

12. Cyber Attacks Damage criteria : widespread, long-term and severe damage The three criteria are relative and achieved according to destruction's spatial and temporal effects. The widespread and long-term attack, with the aim of destroying electronic structures for a hospital, for example, is based on the size of the damaged hospital services and its repair period.

13. Questioned??? Does lethal technology fit into Jus in Bello? !!! There is no explicit rule prohibiting or restricting lethal weapons technology, such as a decision-making method of combat that is independent or almost independent of human intervention.

14. The Lack of explicit legal rules regulating deadly war technology:   does this mean an absolute license to develop, create or use it ??????? Is it true that the rules of prohibition or restriction are in accordance with IHL,   or are they based on use effects? Does this make sense !!!!

15. Who or it : makes the decision to attack / breach article of 57 if : Taking risks despite anticipation ( may be expected ) Not taking feasible precautions , whether in case of Willful acts or in Negligence , recklessness (Willful omission acts) . How to control on the lethal weapon technology those who plan or decide upon an attack …….. (art 57 / para 2 / A) of additional protocol I, 1977. Legal Test

16. principle of proportionality an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated . (art 51 . para 5/b) of additional protocol I, 1977. an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. (art 57.para b /2) of additional protocol I, 1977.

17. distinguish principle the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives …. (art 48) of additional protocol I, 1977 . the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians , shall not be the object of attack (art 51.para 3) of additional protocol I, 1977. discriminate attacks are prohibited . (art 51.para 4) of additional protocol I, 1977. the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack . Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. (art 13. para 3) of additional protocol II, 1977 .

18. P roblematic of lethal weapons technology ( legal examination ( Understanding the specific rules regulating the responsibility in Jus in Bello is of paramount importance in our study of international humanitarian law. It not only deepens our understanding but also stimulates intellectual curiosity. What specific rules will determine the responsibility of states for grave breaches committed in an international armed conflict ? De jure organs What rules govern the responsibility of irregular combatants for severe violations committed in a non-international armed conflict? This is a serious and weighty matter in the field of international humanitarian law.

19. The boundary between what is legality and what is legitimate! Pre-use obligations : The responsibility of manufacturers and developers of lethal weapons technology (Article 36) of Additional Protocol I. The position after use: Unclear standard for the evaluation of incidental damages (critical contextual circumstances issue) !

20. Attribution of responsibility in front of assessing the situational contexts How do we trust the lethal autonomous weapons technology ? How much should be trust? How confident level should be in testing and evaluation processes in lethal weapons technology? What are the precautions when unexpected behavior occurs on the battlefield? What are the consequences if an electronic system fails to manage a weapon under attack? How do we face interactions when a cyber attacker takes control of autonomous weapons systems (cyber enem y)?

21. Attribution of individual criminal responsibility actus reus the perpetrator has been used a lethal weapons technology that is designed by nature or expected to fail to comply with the rules of jus in bello in an armed conflict.   mens rea dolus specialis the perpetrator was aware of the effects of the weapon and intended to use it to achieve an intuitive result to that behavior.(willful acts )   dolus eventualis The perpetrator has the ability to know the possible effects of his / her behavior. However, the lethal weapon technology has been used without care about the possible consequences of using it (negligence or recklessness).

22. Criminal intent levels and the type or crime. International criminal tribunals, as well as ICC, usually depend on the contextual circumstances to determine the type of crime and the degree of intention available to the perpetrator. The contextual circumstances like: Existence of a plan or policy The role of situational contexts (quantitative and qualitative) The number of attacks, the number of civilian casualties and civilian objects compared to the number of targeted fighters and military targets. The type and similarities of injuries