International law does not provide independent guidance for or limits on the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Public scrutiny is the only check.
It is clear that algorithmic warfare is developing now. Governments, industry, academia, and civil society should all be pursuing ways to secure war-algorithm accountability.
In Indefinite War: Unsettled International Law on the End of Armed Conflict, a new report for the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, we argue that international law, as it now stands, provides insufficient guidance to ascertain the end of many armed conflicts on factual, normative, and legal grounds.
A recently-published briefing report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, devises the new concept of "war algorithms" to describe any algorithm expressed in computer code, effectuated through a constructed system, and capable of operating in relation to armed conflict.
If initial reports are confirmed, this month may go down as one of the gravest in recent memory for hospitals in war.
A new report evaluates international humanitarian law protections for wartime medical assistance concerning terrorists. It shows how IHL lays down extensive protections for medical care, which should constrain some domestic criminal proceedings. It also exposes gaps and weaknesses in the protections afforded by IHL itself.
The Wall Street Journal over the weekend ran this essay adapted from our new book, The Future of Violence: Robots and Germs, Hackers and Drones---Confronting A New Age of Threat. It opens,