Georgetown Law Center, Fall 2014 Prof Itamar Mann, [email protected] McDonough 445 Law of Military Technologies Course Description: In recent years, policymakers and civil society actors have often demanded that legal standards “catch up” with the realities new military technologies generate. Advances in targeting, for example, have seemed to erode the doctrines that had aimed to regulate 20th century warfare. What are the underlying assumptions of such calls to update the law? What can the history of the regulation of war teach us about them? And how are they employed in contemporary debates such as those about drones, cyber-attacks, and “autonomous weapons”? Rather than simply requiring adjustments in doctrine, military technologies challenge us to rethink the ethical foundations of the legal regulation of war, as well as its social and political purposes. This seminar will examine the interactions between law and military technologies through an interdisciplinary perspective. We will spend time thinking not only about law and politics, but also about the scientific and economic forces that are intertwined with both technological innovation and combat. Assignments: The course is offered on a 2 or 3 credit basis. Both groups are required to hand in a research paper, due December 19. Those taking the course for 2 credits must write a research paper of minimum 20 pages. Those taking the course for 3 credits must submit an outline for the paper, due November 10, and a first draft, due November 24. All 3-credit students must also schedule at least one meeting with me, in which we will discuss either your outline or your first draft (as you choose). Please do not hesitate to email me and set an appointment, whether you are taking the course for 2 or 3 credits, and whether you have met with me before or not. Any meeting that will help your research is very welcome. All students will also have to submit at least one “in-focus” response, which is a 1-2 page (double spaced) response to the readings for a particular session. In this response, you will be expected to integrate two or more of the readings for the session, offering some critical insights as to their content. Where did you find the readings insightful? Where did you find them limited? You will sign up for a particular session, and send me your response at 8:00am on the day of the relevant session, at the latest. You may be requested to read parts of your in-focus response in the classroom, as basis for class discussion. Try to select a topic you may want to write a paper about, and use the in-focus response as a brainstorming session for your provisional argument. Grading: Term paper – 90%; Class participation and in-focus response – 10% Syllabus (all readings subject to change): I. Introduction The “Cultural / Legal Lag” Thesis, September 8 Wim A. Smitt, Military Technology and Politics in The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis 722 - 744 (Goodin and Tilly, eds., 2006) Eric Jensen, The Future of the Law of Armed Conflict: Ostriches, Butterflies, and Nanobots 35 Mich. J. Int’l L. 253 (2014) Eliot A. Cohen, The Mystique of U.S. Air Power, 73 Foreign Affairs 1, 109 (1994) Reviewing New Weapons – September 15 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (read “narrative” and skim “treaty text” on the State Department website.) Protocol 1 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Article 35; Article 36; Article 48 ICRC Study on Customary IHL, Rule 1 W. Hays Parks, Conventional Weapons and Weapons Reviews, 8 Y.B. Int’l Humanitarian L. 105 – 140 (2005) II. Twentieth Century Solutions Nuclear Weapons – September 22 ICRC, Use of Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical Weapons: Current International Law and Policy Statements ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Summary of the Advisory Opinion of July 8, 1996 Elaine Scarry, Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom 85-141 (2014) Chemical Weapons – September 29 Skim the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) Rolf Dieter-Müller, Total War as a Result of New Weapons? The Use of Chemical Weapons in World War I in Great War, Total War: Combat and Mobilization on the Western Front, 1914-1918, 95-111 (Chickering and Forster eds., 2006) Landmines – October 6 Kenneth Anderson, The Ottawa Convention Banning Landmines, The Role of International Non-governmental Organizations and the Idea of International Civil Society, 11(1) Eur. J. Int’l L. 91-120 (2000) III. Twenty First Century Problems Drones – October 14 Harold Hongju Koh, The Obama Administration and International Law Gen. John P. Abizaid and Rosa Brooks, Recommendations and Report of the Task Force on US Drone Policy, 9-16 (executive summary) (2014) Paul W. Kahn, Imagining Warfare, 14(1) Eur. J. Int’l L. 199-226 (2013) Samuel Moyn, Drones and Imagination 24(1) Eur. J. Int’l L. 227-233 (2013) Cyberattacks – October 20 Michael Schmitt, Talinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare 1-11, (2013) Oliver Kessler and Wouter Werner, Expertise, Uncertainty, and International Law: A Study of the Tallin Manual on Cyberwarfare, 26(4) Leiden J. Int’l L. 793-810 (2013) Jack Goldsmith, Can We Stop the Global Cyber Arms Race? The Washington Post, February 1, 2010 Autonomous Weapon Systems I – October 27 Directive 3000.09: Autonomy in Weapon Systems Kenneth Anderson and Matthew Waxman, Law and Ethics for Robot Soldiers, Policy Review (forthcoming, 2014) (excerpts) Peter Asaro, On Banning Autonomous Weapon Systems: Human Rights, Automation, and the Dehumanization of Lethal Decision-Making 94 Int’l Rev. of the Red Cross 886 (2012) (excerpts) Ian Kerr and Katie Szyilagyi, Evitable Conflicts, Inevitable Technologies? The Science Fiction of Robotic Warfare and IHL, Law, Culture and the Humanities (2014) (excerpts) Autonomous Weapon Systems II - November 3 Readings TBD Law, Technology, and the Market – November 10 Security Council Resolution 1540 http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/subcommittees/terrorism-nonproliferation-and-trade Mitchell B. Wallerstein, Losing Controls: How U.S. Export Restrictions Jeopardize National Security and Harm Competitiveness, 85 Foreign Affairs 11 (2009). Johannes Rath et al., Evolution of Different Dual-Use Concepts in International and National Law and Its Implications on Research Ethics and Governance, Science and Engineering Ethics (2014) Technology and the Investigation of War Crimes November 17 Ben Emerson Report on Drones and Forensic Architecture website Andrew Stobo Sniderman and Mark Hanis, Drones for Human Rights, N.Y. Times, Jan. 30 (2013) Darryl Li, Some Bad Ideas Can’t Be Shot Down IV. Case Study: Gaza Gaza Case Study – Iron Dome, Tunnel Warfare December 24 Readings TBD V. Conclusion Safety for Whom? – December 1 Henry Shue, Targeting Civilian Infrastructure with Smart Bombs: The New Permissiveness, Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly (2010) Gabriealla Blum, Invisble Threats