ICRC Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog

ICRC Law and Policy

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Humanitarian Law & Policy blog is a unique space for timely analysis and debate on international humanitarian law (IHL) issues and the policies that shape humanitarian action.

  1. Oct 15

    AI will not set its own limits in warfare. States must.

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is being developed at extraordinary speed, prompting warnings from within the technology industry itself that advances may be outpacing our ability to understand and control its risks. Nowhere are the stakes higher than in armed conflict. As militaries increasingly explore the integration of AI into weapons and military decision-making, technological capability can easily be mistaken for inevitability: if a system can be built, the assumption follows that it will eventually be deployed. History suggests otherwise. States have made choices before about which technologies of warfare to prohibit, constrain or refrain from using – and they face such a choice again today. In this post, ICRC Director of International Law, Movement and Partnerships Cordula Droege argues that abstract debates about the need to address the risks of AI should not distract from a concrete and achievable task already before states: establishing legally binding rules on autonomous weapon systems (AWS), including those incorporating AI. Drawing on the realities of deploying complex technologies in the unpredictable conditions of armed conflict, she explains why technical safeguards alone cannot resolve the humanitarian, legal and ethical concerns raised when weapons select and apply force without human intervention. Ahead of the Seventh Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in November, she calls on states to turn more than a decade of work into clear prohibitions and restrictions on AWS, while there is still time to decide what role machines and algorithms should play in war.

    AI will not set its own limits in warfare. States must.
  2. Sep 24

    Terrorist, war criminal, or both? Towards dual prosecutions of war crimes and terrorist offences

    A leading media figure and foreign fighter of a notorious group designated as terrorist was sentenced to life imprisonment for “conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, resulting in death”. Although outwardly appearing to quench the thirst of esteemed Lady Justice, the criminal charge reveals only part of the picture: in addition to having provided material support, the defendant was also filmed personally executing two kneeling soldiers, in other words, a foreseeably serious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL). Whilst these factual elements are mentioned with regard to the aggravated circumstances of the conduct and resulting consequences for sentencing considerations, the defendant was only charged with one single criminal count – the terrorist offence. Such is characteristic of the issues this post seeks to address, namely, the tensions that arise when such serious violations of IHL are apparently overlooked, and victims’ calls for justice left unanswered. In this post and as part of the Emerging Voices series, Natasha Floodgate, PhD candidate and teaching assistant at the University of Geneva, analyses current trends surrounding prosecutions of terrorist offences and war crimes before examining why such practice occurs. In a bid to reconcile the latitude afforded by the international counter-terrorism framework with existing state obligations under IHL and international criminal law (ICL), the author calls for a dualistic approach in order to achieve comprehensive prosecutorial outcomes.

    Terrorist, war criminal, or both? Towards dual prosecutions of war crimes and terrorist offences
  3. Sep 3

    The humanitarian case for universalizing the Convention on Cluster Munitions

    Cluster munitions cause harm both at the moment of attack and long after fighting has ended. By scattering submunitions across wide areas, often with high failure rates, they expose civilians to immediate danger while leaving behind unexploded ordnance that can kill and injure for decades. For survivors, the consequences can last a lifetime, extending beyond the initial injury to affect physical and mental health, education, livelihoods and participation in community life. The Convention on Cluster Munitions was created in response to these documented and enduring humanitarian consequences, combining prohibition of the weapon with obligations to clear contaminated areas and assist victims. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Fahad Ahmed and ICRC Physical Rehabilitation Program Coordinator Maarten Abeel examine the humanitarian case for strengthening the implementation and universalizing the Convention ahead of its Third Review Conference in Laos in September 2026. Drawing on the experience of survivors and the role of physical rehabilitation in preventing injury from becoming lifelong exclusion, they argue that the Convention has demonstrated the value of humanitarian disarmament in both preventing future harm and addressing its consequences. They call on states to reject any normalization of cluster munition use, strengthen victim assistance and rehabilitation, and accelerate universalization of the Convention.

    The humanitarian case for universalizing the Convention on Cluster Munitions

Ratings & Reviews

4.3
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Humanitarian Law & Policy blog is a unique space for timely analysis and debate on international humanitarian law (IHL) issues and the policies that shape humanitarian action.

You Might Also Like