Robin Geiss

Asymmetric conflict structures

Inequality in arms, indeed, significant disparity between belligerents, has become a prominent feature of various contemporary armed conflicts. Such asymmetries, albeit not at all a new phenomenon in the field of warfare, no longer constitute a random occurrence of singular battles. As a structural characteristic of modern-day warfare asymmetric conflict structures have repercussions on the application of fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. How, for example, can the concept of military necessity, commonly understood to justify the degree of force necessary to secure military defeat of the enemy, be reconciled with a constellation in which one side in the conflict is from the outset bereft of any chance of winning the conflict militarily? Moreover, military imbalances of this scope evidently carry incentives for the inferior party to level out its inferiority by circumventing accepted rules of warfare. This article attempts tentatively to assess the repercussions this could have on the principle of reciprocity, especially the risk of the instigation of a destabilizing dynamic of negativ e reciprocity which ultimately could lead to a gradual intensification of a mutual disregard of international humanitarian law.

Has the armed conflict in Afghanistan affected the rules on the conduct of hostilities

The armed conflict in Afghanistan since 2001 has raised manifold questions pertaining to the humanitarian rules relative to the conduct of hostilities. In Afghanistan, as is often the case in so-called asymmetric conflicts, the geographical and temporal boundaries of the battlefield, and the distinction between civilians and fighters, are increasingly blurred. As a result, the risks for both civilians and soldiers operating in Afghanistan are high. The objective of this article is to assess whether – and if so how much – the armed conflict in Afghanistan has affected the application and interpretation of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution – principles that form the core of legal rules pertaining to the conduct of hostilities.

Autonomous Weapons Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy

The intense and polemical debate over the legality and morality of weapons systems to which human cognitive functions are delegated (up to and including the capacity to select targets and release weapons without further human intervention) addresses a phenomena which does not yet exist but which is widely claimed to be emergent. This groundbreaking collection combines contributions from roboticists, legal scholars, philosophers and sociologists of science in order to recast the debate in a manner that clarifies key areas and articulates questions for future research. The contributors develop insights with direct policy relevance, including who bears responsibility for autonomous weapons systems, whether they would violate fundamental ethical and legal norms, and how to regulate their development. It is essential reading for those concerned about this emerging phenomenon and its consequences for the future of humanity.

The principle of proportionality - force protection as a military advantage

‘Force protection’ is a primary concern of every military commander. Undoubtedly, it is an important and legitimate factor in the planning of every attack. However, when it comes to the humanitarian proportionality principle there is considerable controversy over the question to what extent ‘force protection’ can be factored into the humanitarian proportionality calculus as a relevant military advantage to be weighed against expected civilian casualties, injuries and damage. This question is pursued in this article.

Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2013

The Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law is an authoritative peer reviewed annual publication with articles specially focused on current developments in the law of armed conflict, current armed conflicts and the interrelationship of IHL with other bodies of law and other disciplines.

Concerned with the health and welfare of mankind ... ? The UN Drug Conventions: A suitable legal framework for the 21st century?

The contribution analyses whether the un Drug Conventions still serve their original purpose, namely the furtherance of the health and welfare of mankind in the 21st century. To this end the contribution begins with an outline of how the un Drug Conventions aim to protect mankind’s health and welfare. On this basis it is inquired whether un Drug Conventions are somehow irreversibly imbued with a zero-tolerance approach that undermines the health and welfare of vulnerable groups on both ends of the supply chain respectively. Thus, with respect to the supply side the question is pursued whether the un Drug Conventions provisions on crop cultivation imperil the livelihoods of rural communities. With regard to the demand side it is examined whether the un Drug Conventions forestall the adoption of more liberal, i.e. non-punitive and health-oriented approaches towards illicit drug users. In a next step, the analysis turns to a long-standing and currently particularly prevalent criticism according to which the international drug control regime puts disproportionate pressure on so-called drug producing and drug transit States, while turning a blind eye on the so-called drug consuming States. In concluding, the contribution turns to the question how the international drug control system could be enhanced to better meet its proper goals of protecting mankind’s health and welfare.