Filed under:
Human Centricity
Responsibility
Bias and Harm Mitigation

The saying "All’s fair in love and war" suggests that in both romantic and conflictual contexts, normal ethical rules can be set aside to achieve one’s goals. However, in the realm of armed conflict, this idea is firmly challenged by the established principles and laws of war, which impose strict limits on what is permissible.

 

 

1. What principles govern conduct in war?

In the context of war, actions are governed by Jus in bello, a set of ethical considerations that today underpin International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This body of law regulates the conduct of hostilities to ensure that ethical and humanitarian considerations are upheld even during warfare.
Distinction: reflecting over two millennia of the Just War Tradition, contemporary law provides a clear separation between the two groups of people: “Only combatants are permitted to take a direct part in hostilities. It follows that they may be attacked. Civilians may not take a direct part in hostilities and, for so long as they refrain from doing so, are protected from attack.” (The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 24. Referring to Additional Protocol I, Art. 43 & 51). Civilians have the right never to be intentionally attacked by military forces. On their part, they have a duty not to take up arms, except in direct self-defence. This should be seen as an absolute principle – even extreme military necessity cannot override the prohibition on deliberately targeting noncombatants as it can only require us to do that which is legal in the first place.

Proportionality: Closely related to the idea of discrimination is proportionality: just as the war itself must be a proportional response to the injury suffered, the means employed to pursue the war must also be proportionate to the military necessity of a particular target or objective. Effectively, it asks “is it really worth it?” The principle requires that the damage, losses or injury resulting from any military action, not just to one’s own side but considered overall, should not be excessive in relation to the expected military advantage.

It was in line with the idea of proportionality that the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868 prohibited the use of incendiary or explosive projectiles below a certain size and weight – the parties accepted that they could achieve the same effect with a traditional solid round, so why cause additional and unnecessary suffering? The use of biological and chemical weapons is banned today for the same reason and one is still prohibited from poisoning water and food supplies.

Compared to the military advantage achieved by their use, some types of weapons or methods of war are simply considered too inhumane due to the degree of suffering they can inflict.

Other ideas that find expression in international law from this kind of thinking include:

 

 

Some means and methods, such as perfidy (e.g., feigning surrender to attack), poison, and biological or chemical weapons, have been banned under IHL. These actions exploit trust or cause indiscriminate harm, violating the principles of distinction and humanity. See also Mala in Se. States are obligated to ensure that any new weapon, means, or method of warfare are capable of complying with IHL. An Art 36 legal review, which refers to the requirement in the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions, ensures that new technologies do not contravene established principles.

Thus, from a legal and ethical perspective, the idea that "all’s fair in war" is unequivocally incorrect. Instead, fairness and rules are vital to maintaining some measure of humanity amidst the chaos of conflict. For developers, this means designing solutions that not only meet technical requirements but also embody the legal and moral commitments of IHL. The future of AI in warfare will hinge on its ability to uphold these standards, ensuring that even in the chaos of conflict, fairness, humanity, and law prevail over unrestrained pragmatism.

 

 

The Jus post Bellum demands that all parties to a conflict consider that the purpose of any conflict is to return to a state of peace. The logic therefore is that anything that makes that return to peace harder, or even impossible, is counter productive and strategically incoherent. This recognises that there is a difference between conflict termination (people have stopped shooting at each other) and conflict resolution (people no longer want to shoot at each other). Victorious parties should consider factors such as any peace settlement being publicly declared and proportionate to the initial justification for the conflict; the settlement must recognise and vindicate the rights of everyone involved, not just the victor; it must discriminate between those who are morally culpable and those who are not; provide appropriate punishment for those (on both sides) who may have violated both ad Bellum and in Bello principles; consider compensation that does not sow the seeds of future conflict; and, finally, allow rehabilitation or reform of state institutions that are requiring it.

The link between in Bello violations and difficulties in returning to peace has been demonstrated all too many times through history.

Adapted from D Whetham (Ed.), Ethics, Law and Military Operations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).