جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « new weapons » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

With the advent of new weapons of different nature and type of use on the battlefields in recent regional and international conflicts and the increasing development of weapons of the autonomous, intelligent, UAV and non-lethal weapons, most activists and thinkers in the field of armed conflict To study the feasibility of observing the principles and regulations governing international humanitarian law, as well as the responsibility of the states that own and use these types of weapons, and to study and analyze theoretical and practical issues in this field. to describe precisely doubts have been risen for some that the rules and principles of the philanthropy international law is completely obsolete and inefficient in adapting the new ways of conflicts. But the fact is Yet with the notable advancements in the field of technology, these rules and principles are still in use. In fact, the origins of these rules, which are the public conscience, as well as the flexibility of humanitarian law rules make it possible to adapt to new conflicts. Although new software wars, like any other emerging phenomenon, have created legal challenges for manufacturers and tensions between countries, these tensions can be reduced by regulating specific regulations. Although the general principles governing armed conflict may suffice, in this area we need to update the rules governing them so that a precautionary approach can be taken to prevent tensions between the owners of these weapons and the limits of their use in accordance with international regulations and in the light of international responsibility. Specified the type of aggravated responsibility.

For more than four decades, Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions has been considered as a norm for assessing the legality of new weapons. The criteria included in this article are based on weapons that were in existence at the time of its adoption. New technologies have brought new weapons which challenged the existing norms. Cyberspace as one of these technologies has capabilities that are used in software or malware forms for causing damages or injuries in the armed conflicts. The question posed here is whether Article 36 of the Additional Protocol I can regulate such capabilities under international humanitarian law? Due to the novelty of these capabilities and the difficulty of naming them as weapons, their legal review is faced with challenges in the light of Article 36 of the Additional Protocol. The review of Article 36, along with the nature of cyberspace capabilities shows that their legal assessment faces challenges such as the lack of rules and regulations that explicitly prohibits or allows explicitly the use of cyberspace, entrusting the definition of weapons to the member States of the Protocol, the definition of new weapons, the non-application of the object to computer data for the perceived cyber-weapons as a weapon, the lack of an international consensus on the virtual effects of the use of cybercriminals, the lack of regulation on the requirement for individuals and groups to produce cyber weapons for legal assessment, and most importantly, the interconnection of military and civilian networks and the possible use of cyber-weapons likely to infect critical civilian networks. Therefore, respecting the fundamental principles of International Humanitarian Law including distinction, proportionality, military necessity, and precautionary measures will be difficult.

According to 1907 Hague Regulations, the right of belligerents to adopt weapons and methods of warfare is not unlimited. All States have obligations to ban or restrict certain weapons under International Agreements and International Customary Law. The reality of everyday developments in military and weapons technology led the founders of the 1977 Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions (1944) to designate an Article with the purpose of obliging member States into legal assessment of their new weapons. Hence, Article 36 of Additional Protocol I (1977) of the Geneva Conventions (1944) indicates that States must determine whether new weapons, means or methods of warfare they intend to study, develop, acquire or adopt comply with the rules of International Law applicable to them. However, the practical aspects of the said review mechanism are not clear. As a result, to this date only six States have attempted to apply Article 36. Examining the practice of the aforementioned countries will help other States to fulfill their obligation of legal review of their modern weapons.