Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Use and Misuse of New Technologies pp 73–91Cite as

Training and Education of Armed Forces in the Age of High-Tech Hostilities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In recent decades, new technologies have so radically changed current warfare that, as a consequence, the very law of armed conflict had to be applied to new means and methods of warfare, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and cyber attacks, as well as autonomous weapon systems. This Chapter explores the impact of this high-tech trend on the education and training of the personnel of armed forces from two different perspectives. First, it explores what military training duties States have with respect to high-tech means and methods of warfare and, in particular, whether the law of armed conflict requires that States employing them provide specific military training to their armed forces. It is argued that States may be held responsible for the inadequate training of their soldiers in situations where this results in a violation of the principle of precaution. Second, the analysis aims at establishing whether a duty to provide international humanitarian law education and training exists with specific regard to high-tech means and methods of warfare, in light of State practice regarding the dissemination of international humanitarian law. Arguably, although a significant trend regarding the supply of specific instructions and education pertaining to high-tech means and methods of warfare does exist, the lack of a specific international humanitarian law education and training focusing on high-tech means and methods of warfare may not be considered a violation of international humanitarian law in every case.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The expression “high-tech” hostilities is employed in this work a-technically, as referred to all the means and methods of warfare that became available or commonplace in the last two decades, or which are under development at the time of the writing of this chapter, thanks to the developments of technology (such as cyber operations, unmanned aerial vehicles, and autonomous weapons).

  2. 2.

    In this work, the expressions “international humanitarian law”, “jus in bello”, and “law of armed conflict” are employed interchangeably as synonyms. On this terminology, see Kolb (2013), para. 1.

  3. 3.

    “Training”, Cambridge Dictionary online, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/training.

  4. 4.

    “Education”, Cambridge Dictionary online, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/education.

  5. 5.

    See Sandoz et al. (1987), para. 2206. On the principle of military necessity see, among others, Venturini (1988), Salvadego (2016). On the principle of humanity, see Cassese (1979) and Meron (2000).

  6. 6.

    Garraway (2002), p. 955.

  7. 7.

    See, among many others, Harrison Dinniss (2012), Roscini (2014), Woltag (2014) and Schmitt (2017).

  8. 8.

    US Department of Defence, Law of War Manual (June 2015, update December 2016), Sect. 16.1.2.

  9. 9.

    US Department of Defence, Directive 3000.09 (21 November 2012), www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/300009p.pdf.

  10. 10.

    See, among others, O’Connell (2012), Wagner (2014), Barela (2015) and Lucas (2016).

  11. 11.

    UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/Unmanned%20Aerial%20Vehicles%20in%20Humanitarian%20Response%20OCHA%20July%202014.pdf.

  12. 12.

    See, generally, Sassòli (2014), Bhuta et al. (2016) and Harris (2016).

  13. 13.

    On the different proposals regarding new treaty law to govern high-tech hostilities, see, generally, Liivoja (2015), pp. 1160–1161.

  14. 14.

    See, generally, Doswald-Beck (2002), p. 163; Saxon (2013), p. 2; Nasu and McLaughlin (2014), pp. 5–6; Roscini (2014), p. 281; Heintschel von Heinegg et al. (2018), pp. 6–7.

  15. 15.

    Today, this rule is codified by Article 51(2) AP I, and it is a parcel of the principle of distinction.

  16. 16.

    Liivoja (2015), p. 1168.

  17. 17.

    See infra Sect. 4.

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., Canons of the Second Lateran Council of 1139 (during the Pontificate of Innocent III), which decreed that “[w]e prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on” (available at www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum10.htm).

  19. 19.

    Ohlin (2017), p. 15.

  20. 20.

    For more on this, see Ohlin (2017).

  21. 21.

    See Liivoja (2015), p. 1167. On the notions of “technology-specific” law, “technology-neutral” law, and “technology-indifferent” law, see Koops (2006).

  22. 22.

    Nasu and McLaughlin (2014), p. 5.

  23. 23.

    The battle of Alesia (52 BC), which was fought between Roman legions led by Julius Ceaser and a confederation of Gallic tribes, is a famous example. The Romans, albeit outnumbered by the enemy, won thanks to their better training and the genius of their commander.

  24. 24.

    In Europe, this shift was marked by the reforms of the Roman consul, Gaius Marius (107 BC).

  25. 25.

    See State of Israel, The Operation in Gaza (27 December 2008 – 18 January 2009): Factual and Legal Aspects (July 2009), para. 2012; State of Israel, The 2014 Gaza Conflict (7 June – 24 August 2014): Factual and Legal Aspects (May 2015), para. 237; Macedonia (2002) and Fletcher (2009).

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    The reference is to the novel Ender’s Game, the sci-fi masterpiece by Scott Card (1985).

  28. 28.

    Garraway (2002), p. 950.

  29. 29.

    The different issue of whether international law permits individuals not to take part into military training due to their freedom of conscience is, clearly, outside the scope of this Chapter.

  30. 30.

    See Schmitt (2017), p. 434.

  31. 31.

    See EECC, Partial Award: Central Front – Ethiopia’s Claim 2, 28 April 2004, para. 108.

  32. 32.

    Ibid, para. 103.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, paras. 109–110 (emphases added).

  34. 34.

    For two notable exceptions, see Vierucci (2006), pp. 719–723; Roscini (2014), p. 235.

  35. 35.

    On the principle of precaution under international humanitarian law, see, generally, Quéguiner (2008), Corn (2015) and Sassòli and Quintin (2014).

  36. 36.

    Emphases added.

  37. 37.

    See Scovazzi (2005), p. 715, footnote No. 32; Vierucci (2006), pp. 720–721.

  38. 38.

    On the autonomous character of the obligations arising from the principle of precaution, see Kolb (2014), p. 168; Longobardo (2017).

  39. 39.

    See Article 3(4) of Protocol II annexed to the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.

  40. 40.

    Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports 2011, p. 10, para. 110. The distinction between obligations of means or conduct and obligations of result has been introduced in the debate regarding the law of international responsibility by the special rapporteur Roberto Ago (draft Articles 20 and 21 in Report of the International Law Commission on its 29th Session (1977), p. 11). Even if Ago’s proposal was not included in the DARS, the distinction between obligations of means or conduct and obligations of result has attracted the attention of many scholars (see Combacau (1981), Conforti (1989), Dupuy (1999), Marchesi (2003), Economides (2010) and Wolfrum (2010)).

  41. 41.

    See ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43, para. 430.

  42. 42.

    On due diligence, see Pisillo Mazzeschi (1989), Pisillo Mazzeschi (1992), Lozano Contreras (2006), Koivurova (2013) and Kulesza (2016). For more on the principle of due diligence in international humanitarian law, see Longobardo (forthcoming).

  43. 43.

    Emphasis added.

  44. 44.

    See the critical remarks offered by Vierucci (2006), p. 722.

  45. 45.

    See Dinstein (2016), pp. 144–145.

  46. 46.

    On this duty, see, generally, Hampson (1989), Garraway (2002), Stubbins Bates (2014) and Mikos-Skuza (2015).

  47. 47.

    According to the Preamble of the Oxford Manual, “It is not sufficient for sovereigns to promulgate new laws. It is essential, too, that they make these laws known among all people, so that when a war is declared, the men called upon to take up arms to defend the causes of the belligerent States, may be thoroughly impregnated with the special rights and duties attached to the execution of such a command”.

  48. 48.

    On the link between knowledge of international humanitarian law and respect for international humanitarian law, see German Federal Ministry of Defence, Law of Armed Conflict: Manual (2013), Sect. 1504; Surbeck (1984), pp. 540–543; Stubbins Bates (2014). On the mechanisms of implementation of international humanitarian law, see, generally, Benvenuti and Bartolini (2012).

  49. 49.

    See Sassòli (2007), p. 46.

  50. 50.

    Spoeri (2013), p. 115.

  51. 51.

    Emphasis added. See, also, Article 83 AP I.

  52. 52.

    Emphases added.

  53. 53.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck (2005), rule 142: “States and parties to the conflict must provide instruction in international humanitarian law to their armed forces”.

  54. 54.

    Emphases added. See also Article 48 of the 1949 II Geneva Convention; Article 127 of the 1949 III Geneva Convention; Article 144 of the 1949 II Geneva Convention; Article 25 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict; Article 6 of the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.

  55. 55.

    Emphases added.

  56. 56.

    Verri (1984), p. 615; Spoeri (2013), pp. 118–119; Mikos-Skuza (2015), pp. 607–608.

  57. 57.

    See Article 4(1)(g), Statutes of the International Committee of the Red Cross (adopted on 21 December 2017 and came into force on 1 January 2018): “The role of the ICRC shall be in particular: […] to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development thereof”.

  58. 58.

    See Spoeri (2013), pp. 119–120.

  59. 59.

    Emphasis added.

  60. 60.

    Emphasis added.

  61. 61.

    See Spoeri (2013), pp. 119–120; Müller (2016), para. 2776. According to Fletcher (2009), p. 72, “[b]oth education and training are needed: training to provide the knowledge and skills needed to perform military tasks and jobs, and education to help military personnel at all levels decide when and how to apply the knowledge and skills that they acquire through training”.

  62. 62.

    Müller (2016), para. 2759.

  63. 63.

    Stubbins Bates (2014), p. 796.

  64. 64.

    Bothe et al. (1982), p. 83.

  65. 65.

    See Australian Defence Forces, Law of Armed Conflict (2006), section 13.9: “The manner of dissemination is left to the states themselves and may be by means of orders, courses of instruction, commentaries or manuals”. See, also, Junod (1984), p. 360.

  66. 66.

    Garraway (2002), p. 950.

  67. 67.

    See Mikos-Skuza (2015), pp. 612–613.

  68. 68.

    See, e.g., ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, Judgment, 24 March 2000, para. 114; ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović & Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Judgement, 15 March 2006, paras. 856; ICC, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 21 March 2016, paras. 735–741. For more on this, see Blank (2017).

  69. 69.

    EECC, Eritrea’s Claim 17, Partial Award, 1 July 2003, para. 60; EECC, Ethiopia’s Claim 4, Partial Award, 1 July 2003, para. 67.

  70. 70.

    See Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, paras. 118–122 and 255–256.

  71. 71.

    Interestingly, the US Department of Defence, Law of War Manual (June 2015, update December 2016), Sect. 6.5.9.3 affirms that international humanitarian law rules “impose obligations on persons [rather than] on the weapons themselves; of course, an inanimate object could not assume an ‘obligation’ in any event. […] The law of war does not require weapons to make legal determinations, even if the weapon (e.g., through computers, software, and sensors) may be characterized as capable of making factual determinations, such as whether to fire the weapon or to select and engage a target. […] Rather, it is persons who must comply with the law of war”.

  72. 72.

    See Report of the 2017 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, 20 November 2017, https://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/B5B99A4D2F8BADF4C12581DF0048E7D0/$file/2017_CCW_GGE.1_2017_CRP.1_Advanced_+corrected.pdf, paras. 15–17. On the issue of sufficient human control, see Chengeta (2017).

  73. 73.

    Garraway (2002), p. 952.

  74. 74.

    US Department of Defence, Law of War Manual (June 2015, update December 2016), section 659.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., Sect. 16.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., Sect. 6.5.8.

  77. 77.

    German Federal Ministry of Defence, Law of Armed Conflict: Manual (2013), Sect. 486.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., Sects. 110–111.

  79. 79.

    UK Ministry of Defence, UK Air and Space Doctrine (2nd edn, 2017), Sects. 2.20 and 4.15.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., Sects. 2.3, 2.21 and 3.10.

  81. 81.

    See Schmitt (2017).

  82. 82.

    Garraway (2002), p. 952.

  83. 83.

    Pictet (1951), p. 348.

  84. 84.

    See supra Sect. 2.

References

  • Barela, Steven J., ed. 2015. Legitimacy and Drones: Investigating the Legality, Morality and Efficacy of UCAVs. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenuti, Paolo, and Giulio Bartolini. 2012. Is There a Need for New International Humanitarian Law Implementation Mechanisms? In Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, ed. Robert Kolb and Gloria Gaggioli, 590–627. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhuta, Nehal, Susanne Beck, Robin Geiß, Hin-Yan Liu, and Claus Kress, eds. 2016. Autonomous Weapons Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, Laurie R. 2017. Examining the Role of Law of War Training in International Criminal Accountability. Utah Law Review: 747–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothe, Michael, Karl Josef Partsch, and Waldemar A. Solf. 1982. New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, Antonio. 1979. The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chengeta, Thompson. 2017. Defining the Emerging Notion of ‘Meaningful Human Control’ in Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS). New York University Journal of International Law & Policy 49: 833–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combacau, Jean. 1981. Obligations de résultat et obligations de comportement: quelques questions et pas de réponse. In Mélanges offerts á Paul Reuter, 181–204. Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conforti, Benedetto. 1989. Obblighi di mezzi e obblighi di risultato nelle convenzioni di diritto uniforme. In Studi in memoria di Mario Giuliano, 373–380. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corn, Geoffrey. 2015. War, Law, and the Often Overlooked Value of Process as a Precautionary Measure. Pepperdine Law Review 42: 419–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein, Yoram. 2016. The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doswald-Beck, Louise. 2002. Some Thoughts on Computer Network Attack and the International Law of Armed Conflict. International Law Studies 76: 163–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy, Pierre-Marie. 1999. Reviewing the Difficulties of Codification: On Ago’s Classification of Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result in Relation to State Responsibility. European Journal of International Law 10: 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economides, Constantin. 2010. Content of the Obligation: Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result. In The Law of International Responsibility, ed. James Crawford, Alain Pellet, and Simon Olleson, 371–381. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J.D. 2009. Education and Training Technology in the Military. Science 323: 72–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garraway, Charles. 2002. Training: The Whys and Wherefores. Social Research 69: 949–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson, Françoise. 1989. Fighting by the Rules: Instructing the Armed Forces in Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 29: 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Shane. 2016. Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law or Killer Robots Are Here. Get Used to It. Temple International & Comparative Law Journal 30: 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison Dinniss, H. 2012. Cyber Warfare and the Laws of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heintschel von Heinegg, Wolff, Robert Frau, and Tassilo Singer. 2018. Introduction. In Dehumanization of Warfare: Legal Implications of New Weapon Technologies, ed. Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, Robert Frau, and Tassilo Singer, 1–11. The Hague: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Louise Doswald-Beck, eds. 2005. Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junod, Sylvie-Stoyanka. 1984. La diffusion du droit international humanitaire. In Études et essais sur le droit international humanitaire et sur les principes de la Croix-Rouge en l’honneur de Jean Pictet, ed. Christophe Swinarski, 359–368. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova, Timo. 2013. Due Diligence. In: Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. http://opil.ouplaw.com.

  • Kolb, Robert. 2013. Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. In: Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. http://opil.ouplaw.com.

  • ———. 2014. Advanced Introduction to International Humanitarian Law. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koops, Bert-Jaaps. 2006. Should ICT Regulation be Technology-Neutral? In Starting Points for ICT Regulation: Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-Liners, ed. Bert-Jaaps Koops, Miriam Lips, Corien Prins, and Maurice Schellekens, 77–108. The Hague: Asser.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kulesza, Joanna. 2016. Due Diligence in International Law. Leiden: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liivoja, Rain. 2015. Technological Change and the Evolution of the Law of War. International Review of the Red Cross 97: 1157–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longobardo, Marco. 2017. L’obbligo per gli Stati di assumere tutte le informazioni necessarie prima di un attacco ai sensi del diritto internazionale umanitario fra nuove e vecchie forme di intelligence. In La responsabilità degli Stati e delle organizzazioni internazionali: nuove fattispecie e problemi di attribuzione e di accertamento, ed. Andrea Spagnolo and Stefano Saluzzo, 37–60. Milano: Ledizioni.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. forthcoming. Due Diligence and International Humanitarian Law. In Due Diligence in International Law, ed. Anne Peters and Heike Krieger. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano Contreras, José Fernando. 2006. La noción de debida diligencia en derecho internacional public. Alicante: Atelier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, Rachel. 2016. Les drones armés au regard du droit international. Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macedonia, Mihael. 2002. Games, Simulations, and the Military Education Dilemma. In Forum for the Future of Higher Education, 157–167. Forterra System.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchesi, Antonio. 2003. Obblighi di condotta e obblighi di risultato: contributo allo studio degli obblighi internazionali. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron, Theodor. 2000. The Humanization of Humanitarian Law. American Journal of International Law 94: 239–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikos-Skuza, Elżbieta. 2015. Dissemination of the Conventions, Including in time of Armed Conflict. In The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, ed. Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta, and Marco Sassòli, 597–614. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Ines. 2016. Article 47: Dissemination of the Convention. In Updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention Online, ed. International Committee of the Red Cross. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasu, Hitoshi, and Robert McLaughlin. 2014. Introduction: Conundrum of New Technologies in the Law of Armed Conflict. In New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict, ed. Hitoshi Nasu and Robert McLaughlin, 1–17. The Hague: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Mary Ellen. 2012. Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004–2009. In Shooting to Kill: Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Use of Lethal Force, ed. Simon Bronitt, Miriam Gani, and Saskia Hufnagel, 263–291. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlin, Jens David. 2017. Remoteness and Reciprocal Risk. In Research Handbook on Remote Warfare, ed. Jens David Ohlin, 15–49. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pictet, Jean, ed. 1951. Commentary to the I Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisillo Mazzeschi, Riccardo. 1989. “Due Diligence” e responsabilità internazionale degli Stati. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Due Diligence and International Responsibility of States. German Yearbook of International Law 35: 9–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quéguiner, Jean-François. 2008. Precautions under the Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities. International Reviews of the Red Cross 88: 793–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscini, Marco. 2014. Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salvadego, Laura. 2016. Struttura e funzioni della necessità militare nel diritto internazionale. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski Christophe, and Bruno Zimmermann, eds. 1987. Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassòli, Marco. 2007. The Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Current and Inherent Challenges. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 10: 45–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical Questions and Legal Issues to Be Clarified. International Law Studies 90: 308–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassòli, Marco, and Anna Quintin. 2014. Active and Passive Precautions in Air and Missile Warfare. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 44: 69–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxon, Dan. 2013. International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War. In International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War, ed. Dan Saxon, 1–16. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, Michael N., ed. 2017. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott Card, Orson. 1985. Ender’s Game. New York: Tor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scovazzi, Tullio. 2005. Il terrorismo di Stato nell’opera di Giulio Douhet. Rivista di diritto internazionale 88: 703–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoeri, Philip. 2013. From Dissemination Towards Integration: An ICRC Perspective. Military Law & Law of War Review 52: 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbins Bates, Elizabeth. 2014. Towards Effective Military Training in International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 96: 795–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surbeck, Jean-Jacques. 1984. La diffusion du droit international humanitaire, condition de son application. In Études et essais sur le droit international humanitaire et sur les principes de la Croix-Rouge en l’honneur de Jean Pictet, ed. Christophe Swinarski, 537–549. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venturini, Gabriella. 1988. Necessità e proporzionalità nell’uso della forza militare in diritto internazionale. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verri, Pietro. 1984. Institutions militaires: le problème de l’enseignement du droit des conflits armés et de l’adaption des règlements à ses prescriptions humanitaires. In Études et essais sur le droit international humanitaire et sur les principes de la Croix-Rouge en l’honneur de Jean Pictet, ed. Christophe Swinarski, 604–619. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vierucci, Luisa. 2006. Sulla nozione di obiettivo militare nella guerra aerea: recenti sviluppi della giurisprudenza internazionale. Rivista di diritto internazionale 89: 693–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Markus. 2014. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. In: Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, online edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum, Rüdiger. 2010. Obligation of Result Versus Obligation of Conduct: Some Thoughts About the Implementation of International Obligations. In Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman, ed. Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, Jacob Katz Cogan, Robert D. Sloane, and Siegfried Wiessner, 363–384. Leiden: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Woltag, Johann-Christoph. 2014. Cyber Warfare: Military Cross-Border Computer Network Operations under International Law. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge the useful feedbacks this paper has received from the participants to the workshop New Technologies as Shields and Swords: Challenges for International, European Union and Domestic Law, University of Parma, 19–20 June 2017, convened by the Centre for Studies in European and International Law (CSEIA). I have full responsibility for all errors and omissions. Internet references were last accessed on 15 January 2018 when the paper was completed. The text of all the mentioned treaties may be accessed at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Westminster, London, UK

    Marco Longobardo

Authors
  1. Marco Longobardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Longobardo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Studies in European and International Affairs, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Elena Carpanelli

  2. Department of Legal Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Nicole Lazzerini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Longobardo, M. (2019). Training and Education of Armed Forces in the Age of High-Tech Hostilities. In: Carpanelli, E., Lazzerini, N. (eds) Use and Misuse of New Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05648-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05648-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05647-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05648-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation