Skip to content
AIGP

RFC-027: IHL-Aligned Governance — References

RFC-027: IHL-Aligned Governance — References

PRIVATE AND PROPRIETARY. Owned by Kanjani AI Research & Causum. See NOTICE.md.

Geneva Conventions (1949)

Convention Full Title Key Articles for AI Governance
GCI Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field Art. 12 (humane treatment), Art. 46 (reprisals prohibited)
GCII Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea Art. 12 (humane treatment)
GCIII Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Art. 13 (humane treatment), Art. 14 (respect for person), Art. 17 (interrogation limits), Art. 122-125 (Information Bureau)
GCIV Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Art. 3 (common article — minimum treatment), Art. 13 (scope), Art. 27 (protected persons rights), Art. 32 (prohibition of coercion), Art. 33 (no collective punishment), Art. 136-141 (Central Tracing Agency) Art. 146-147 (grave breaches)

Citation: International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and their Additional Protocols.
URL: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm

Additional Protocols (1977)

Protocol Key Articles
AP I (International Armed Conflicts) Art. 1(2) (Martens Clause), Art. 48 (basic rule of distinction), Art. 50(1) (definition of civilian, doubt defaults to civilian), Art. 51 (protection of civilian population), Art. 51(5)(b) (proportionality), Art. 52 (general protection of civilian objects), Art. 57 (precautions in attack), Art. 58 (precautions against effects of attack)
AP II (Non-International Armed Conflicts) Art. 4 (fundamental guarantees), Art. 13 (protection of civilian population)

Citation: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.

Hague Conventions (1899/1907)

Instrument Key Provisions
Hague Regulations (1907) Art. 22 (means not unlimited), Art. 23(a)-(h) (specific prohibitions), Art. 25 (undefended places), Art. 27 (buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, charity)

Citation: Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Rome Statute (1998)

Article Relevance
Art. 8 (War Crimes) Defines grave breaches; AI systems that facilitate war crimes create command responsibility questions
Art. 8bis (Crime of Aggression) AI-assisted planning of aggression
Art. 25 (Individual Criminal Responsibility) Accountability for AI-assisted decisions
Art. 28 (Command Responsibility) Superior responsibility for AI systems under their command
Art. 30 (Mental Element) Intent and knowledge requirements for AI-mediated actions

Citation: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9.

ICRC Publications

Position Papers and Reports

  1. ICRC (2021). “Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Armed Conflict: A Human-Centred Approach.”
    Key finding: AI in conflict must be governed by IHL regardless of whether it constitutes a “weapon.”
    URL: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-armed-conflict

  2. ICRC (2019). “International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts.”
    32nd International Conference Report. Addresses autonomous weapons, cyber operations, AI.
    URL: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-report-ihl-and-challenges-contemporary-armed-conflicts

  3. ICRC (2019). “Autonomy, Artificial Intelligence and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems.”
    Position on human control over AI systems with lethal capabilities.

  4. ICRC (2014). “Autonomous Weapon Systems: Technical, Military, Legal and Humanitarian Aspects.”
    Expert meeting report. Defines “meaningful human control.”

  5. ICRC (2020). Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action. 2nd Edition.
    Comprehensive guidance on processing personal data in humanitarian operations.
    Key chapters: Ch. 3 (Legal Bases), Ch. 5 (Data Sharing), Ch. 11 (New Technologies).
    URL: https://www.icrc.org/en/data-protection-humanitarian-action-handbook

ICRC Customary IHL Database

  • Rule 1: Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
  • Rule 14: Proportionality in Attack
  • Rule 15: Precautions in Attack
  • Rule 87: Humane Treatment
  • Rule 88: Non-Discrimination
  • Rule 100: Fair Trial Guarantees
  • Rule 158: Prosecution of War Crimes

URL: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home

Academic and Policy References

Autonomous Weapons and AI in Conflict

  1. Scharre, P. (2018). Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. W.W. Norton & Company.
    Comprehensive survey of autonomous weapons development and governance challenges.

  2. Crootof, R. (2015). “Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Limits of Analogy.” Harvard National Security Journal, 6(2), 51-83.
    Argues existing legal frameworks are insufficient; proposes new governance models.

  3. Gillard, E. (2018). “Proportionality in the Conduct of Hostilities: The Incidental Harm Side of the Assessment.” Chatham House International Law Programme.
    Detailed analysis of proportionality assessment methodology applicable to AI-assisted targeting.

  4. Schmitt, M.N. (ed.) (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge University Press.
    Analogies between cyber operations governance and AI operations governance.

  5. Heyns, C. (2013). “Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.” UN Doc. A/HRC/23/47.
    First UN report calling for moratorium on lethal autonomous robotics.

  6. Brehm, M. (2017). “Defending the Boundary: Constraints and Requirements on the Use of Autonomous Weapons Systems Under International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law.” Academy Briefing No. 9, Geneva Academy.

Data Protection in Conflict and Crisis

  1. UNHCR (2015). “Policy on the Protection of Personal Data of Persons of Concern.”
    Sets standards for processing refugee biometric and personal data.
    URL: https://www.refworld.org/docid/55643c1d4.html

  2. OCHA (2021). “Data Responsibility Guidelines.”
    Guidance for humanitarian organizations on responsible data management.
    URL: https://data.humdata.org/dataset/ocha-data-responsibility-guidelines

  3. Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (2017). “The Signal Code: A Human Rights Approach to Information During Crisis.”
    Establishes information rights framework for crisis-affected populations.

  4. Kuner, C. & Marelli, M. (eds.) (2020). “Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action.” ICRC & Brussels Privacy Hub.
    Comprehensive operational guidance on data protection in humanitarian settings.

  5. Berens, J., Vergara-Cobián, C., & Kuner, C. (2017). “Data Protection in Humanitarian Emergencies.” Brussels Privacy Hub Working Paper.

AI Governance Frameworks

  1. NIST (2023). “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0).”
    GOVERN 1.1 (accountability mechanisms), MAP 1.1 (context determination), MEASURE 2.6 (human evaluation), MANAGE 3.1 (risk response).
    URL: https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence/executive-order-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence

  2. European Union (2024). “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Artificial Intelligence Act.”
    Art. 6 (high-risk classification), Art. 9 (risk management system), Art. 14 (human oversight), Art. 5 (prohibited practices).

  3. UN Human Rights Council (2011). “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” (Ruggie Principles). UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31.
    Establishes corporate responsibility to respect human rights, including in conflict-affected areas.

  4. Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (2021). The Oxford Handbook on the International Law of Global Security.

CCW and LAWS Discussions

  1. CCW Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS (2014–present). Reports of the GGE meetings.
    URL: https://www.unog.ch/laws

  2. CCW (2019). “Guiding Principles on LAWS.” Adopted by the GGE.
    11 guiding principles including: human responsibility, accountability, IHL compliance, weapons review.

  3. Austria, et al. (2023). “Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy.”

Conceptual Frameworks

Meaningful Human Control

  1. Article 36 (2016). “Meaningful Human Control: Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons.”
    Defines the standard for human involvement in AI-assisted decisions with lethal consequences.

  2. Horowitz, M.C. & Scharre, P. (2015). “Meaningful Human Control in Weapon Systems: A Primer.” Center for a New American Security.

Dual-Use and Civilian Applications

  1. Bostrom, N. & Cirkovic, M. (eds.) (2008). Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford University Press.
    Chapter on dual-use AI technologies and governance frameworks.

  2. Amoroso, D. & Tamburrini, G. (2020). “Autonomous Weapons Systems and Meaningful Human Control: Ethical and Legal Issues.” Current Robotics Reports, 1, 187-194.

The Martens Clause

  1. Cassese, A. (2000). “The Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky?” European Journal of International Law, 11(1), 187-216.
    Authoritative analysis of the Martens Clause’s legal effect and modern application.

  2. Ticehurst, R. (1997). “The Martens Clause and the Laws of Armed Conflict.” International Review of the Red Cross, 317.
    ICRC perspective on the clause’s continuing relevance.

Standards and Technical References

Biometrics and Identification in Conflict

  1. ICRC (2019). “Biometrics and Humanitarian Action.” Policy brief on biometric data of protected persons.

  2. UNHCR (2018). “Strategy on the Use of Biometrics.” Governance framework for refugee biometric processing.

AI Safety and Alignment

  1. Amodei, D. et al. (2016). “Concrete Problems in AI Safety.” arXiv:1606.06565.
    Foundational framework for AI safety applicable to humanitarian AI.

  2. Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Viking.
    Alignment problem framing relevant to AI systems affecting protected persons.

Relevant Case Law

Case Court Relevance
Prosecutor v. Galić (2003) ICTY Proportionality assessment methodology
Prosecutor v. Blaškić (2000) ICTY Command responsibility, knowledge standard
Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996) ICJ Martens Clause application, IHL as lex specialis
Wall Advisory Opinion (2004) ICJ Concurrent application of IHL and IHRL
DRC v. Uganda (2005) ICJ Occupation obligations, duty of vigilance
Prosecutor v. Tadić (1995) ICTY Classification of armed conflict (IAC vs. NIAC)