Technology in War: Our Responsibility

THE DILEMMA

Science is one of the great achievements of man. It has enabled us as a species to understand how the world around us works and why. It allows us to cure people of diseases that would have been incurable scarcely fifty years ago, to communicate with each other when we are separated by vast oceans, and even to fly over those very same oceans in a matter of hours where it had once been a matter of months. To put it simply, science has been responsible for enabling man to do what he could never have done before. The same is true in times of armed conflict, now more so than ever when men can kill each other without ever seeing their opponent. Technology has played, and will continue to play, a role in armed conflicts that requires the constant adaptation and enforcement of humanitarian law to take into account the new forms of violence that come with technological progress. However, because humanitarian law has proven itself to be neither flexible nor responsive enough to regulate the growing rate of technological progress, technology continues to play a significant role in enabling the tragedies of war. This is largely due to three factors on the international scene: the will of states, customary law, and the participation of non state organizations. States have historically shown themselves to be unwilling to compromise even the smallest military advantage when it comes to limiting the usage of the latest technology in fear of handicapping their own military in times of need. Then, in absence of explicit statements on the limitation of new technology, the only form of law that would limit usage of dangerous technology is customary law that is inherently slow due to the need to establish a precedent or have an unofficial consensus among states that takes years to establish. Finally, the relatively unrestricted access that non government organizations have had to technology, civilian and military, has allowed them to act in armed conflicts in an unethical manner while being essentially out of the bounds of the law.

HUMANITARIAN LAW

With the first Geneva Convention of 1864 for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field, the first steps to the creation of an international humanitarian law were made. International humanitarian law is that law that sets a base line for all armed conflicts in an attempt to limit the effects of those conflicts. It tries to protect those who are either not part of the conflict or have withdrawn from it in the form of wounded, prisoners, and non combatants (civilians). In addition to this, humanitarian law has jurisdiction over all international and intra-national armed conflicts, regardless of wether either party has signed onto the relevant conventions. Simply put, only armed conflicts, regardless of their participants, fall under the purview of international humanitarian law. This particular aspect, the fact that every nation must follow it, is due to its existence as customary law, law that is supported by precedents and general acceptance by the international community.

The majority of humanitarian law can be found in two series of international conferences that have been occurring since the late 19^th century: the Geneva and Hague Conventions. The Geneva Conventions have largely concerned themselves with regulating the behavior of combatants and the opposing sides. These include the treatment of prisoners, wounded, and the targeting of civilians. The Hague Conventions, on the other hand, are about the tools of war. They determine which weapons are lawful and what are acceptable costs for given military gains. Of the two conventions, the Hague Conventions have a definite emphasis on attempting to limit the abuse of technology in warfare, making them the chief source of the regulation of technology.

WHAT HAS COME BEFORE

Technology has a long history in warfare. Ever since man first engaged in military actions, the group with the bigger clubs, stronger shield, or faster horses had a definite advantage in any military operation. The saying “the man with the biggest stick rules the yard” is very apt to describe the relationship. Often, it is because of this distinct technological superiority that enables one state to establish dominion over another. The examples of such instances are countless. The colonization of the Americas by Spanish conquistadors, the suppression of native peoples and the expansion of the British Empire would have been impossible had there not been a vast technological gap in military equipment between the conflicting sides. The use of the nuclear bomb to end the Second World War is but another instance of technological superiority winning a drawn out war in favor of those who had it. More recently, the last two Iraq Wars were brought to a conclusion in a matter of weeks only because the United States had technology that the Iraqi military couldn’t even dream of having. The possession of and the ability to use technological superiority has always been, and will continue to be a vital part of any military engagement.

The willingness of states to curtail efforts to regulate and limit their use of the latest technology for military purposes has been shown time and time again in the resolutions of the Hague Conferences. As Chris af Jochnick and Roger Norman argue in their paper on  the legitimation of violence, these conferences that are supposed to regulate the use of weapons of war do more to legitimize and legalize the use of the very weapons they are meant to limit the use of. The only weapons that they have been successful in regulating are those weapons that are either clearly useless, or so volatile that for one military to use it would be the same as shooting themselves in the foot. Examples of such weapons technology limited by  the Hague Conventions are the notorious dum-dum bullets, asphyxiating gases, and ballon bombs. Dum-dum bullets were banned only because they were equivalent to regular bullets for military operations, having only the added bonus of lodging themselves within the bodies of their targets instead of going all the way through, causing terrible mutilations. This was passed with the caveat that they could still be used in the suppression of indigenous populations who seemed to demonstrate a particular subservience when faced with the prospect of mutilating projectiles. Asphyxiating gases were banned just before World War I for the reason that those who felt the effects of these weapons were determined by the wind, and were in no way controllable. If the given states had been in possession of technology to control the wind or who the gases would asphyxiate, there would have been no way to limit its use. The final example from the Hague Conventions is the balloon bomb, a large explosive attached to a balloon and sent to drift over a given target. The utility of this technology is limited by the same factors that limited the use of asphyxiating gases.

After the Second World War, states came to better realize just how much devastation could be caused by allowing the indiscriminate use of weapons technology. Half of Europe lay in rubble and the majority of Japan was in ruin along with the devastation of the worlds first nuclear explosions. The result should have been the immediate ban on the practice of bombing cities with aircrafts, the destruction of all nuclear weapons and the prohibition of their creation, as well as a reexamination on what was a militarily acceptable target against which to use such terrible technology. What did happen was the restriction on submarine warfare, a ban on biological weapons, and a limiting of nuclear weapons in the form of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Of these measures, only the ban on biological weapons as an offensive weapon is uncompromising.

This lack of reaction by state parties to terminate the abuse of military technology was due once again to state self interest as well as the sluggish behemoth that is conventional international law. State self interest dictates that a state must retain and cannot give up any advantage that might help it in the future, especially in an armed conflict when a state is fighting for its very existence. However, this was present prior  to the war and continues to play a heavy role in determining what weapons are allowed and which are not. No, the new player of importance following the Second World War and who is largely responsible for the lack of regulation for the use of technology is conventional law. Conventional international law is a form of international law that is based upon a broad consensus built over extended periods of time and is applied to all nations unless they specifically state that they do not wish to follow that particular law. The diplomatic immunity of diplomats in foreign countries is but one such example of conventional law. In the instances following the Second World War, conventional law allowed quite clearly for the aerial bombings of civilian cities. Everyone did it, so it was a lawful and legitimate use of airplanes in war. Then, because conventional law is so difficult to change, it continued to allow the aerial bombing as a legitimate tactic in warfare as it was later used in Vietnam, Kosovo, and Korea by US and NATO forces.

In recent history, a new factor has entered the international scene that affects the need for timely adaptations to humanitarian law to take into account technological development: the introduction of non state actors. Contrary to having a slowing effect on the adapting process in the same manner that state self interest and conventional law have, non state actors have the effect of making the need for more rapid response ever more imperative. Until now, technology has been mostly left unregulated in scope of who is able to use, buy, and develop it. The exceptions are those technologies that even states have found too dangerous to use, namely biological and nuclear weapons along with some others that require a security clearance to even hear about. However, this leaves in the hands of everyone a vast amount of technology that can be used for anything. Unfortunately, it seems that the number of those who are willing to use it for violent and evil purposes is ever increasing. Instances of non government organizations committing atrocious acts with common technology is constantly growing. The use of mass communications systems during the Rwandan genocide in 1994 allowed it to achieve the scale of killing over 10,000 people every day. Without  the radio broadcasts inciting ethnic Hutus to kill the remaining Tutsis, the genocide would never have been able to achieve the scale and scope it did in the same time frame. Then the use of commercial airplanes for the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 is but another example of the misuse of peaceful technology for the purpose of causing massive harm to others. The list of misuses of technology by non government groups for violent ends continues to grow and requires that international humanitarian law adapt itself faster than ever before. Something must be done when acts of such  shocking caliber occur, and anything to prevent the misuse of technology on such scale must be done. The only thing we cannot do is simply stand there and let it happen.

FUTURE DILEMMAS

The predicting of where technology will go has always been a tricky business. The human mind has a tendency of creating the most random things, and then of being even more unpredictable in finding uses for that very same technology. However, there a couple aspects of the relationship between technology and the need for change by humanitarian law that are obvious. One of the more pressing developments is the occurrence of terrorist acts. Previously terrorists had been a purely domestic matter because they were isolated instances within a state that originated within that state. However, this distinction doesn’t exist anymore. Now, terrorist groups are international organizations that make attacks on states that are not their own, and they do so with impunity. Their ability to do so is directly connected to their access to technology, wether its legal or illegal in nature.

The most critical of technologies that has allowed terrorists to thrive and currently remains unregulated is the internet. This single web of communications allows even the most isolated of men to find others of the same mentality, regardless of where they live. It also allows the instantaneous distribution of ideas, methodologies, dogmas, and propaganda that further helps to fuel these terrorist organizations. Without unlimited access to the internet, these organizations would find themselves in dire straits in terms of finding support for their cause. However, states have thus far proven themselves unwilling to regulate the internet. They even gone so far as to deregulate it even further, placing it into the hands of companies that are not under the direct control of any government. This is of course due to the legitimate worry of maintaing freedom of the speech and expression. However, unless states find a way to cut terrorist organization from the rest of the world, they will continue to find support in the farthest corners of the world where they are bound to find support.

Another technology that is often overlooked simply because of its commonplace occurrence is the access that terrorists have to military weapons, wether they are old or new. The weapons black market has always existed, but in the current atmosphere of widespread violence, it’s a booming and lively trade. These weapons can go from being standard US military issue Glock and Walther 9 millimeter pistols given to US supporting militaries, to the Soviet Kalshnikovs produced in the abandoned ex-Soviet weapons plants. However, it is not so much the nature of the weapons themselves that is worrying. It is the manner in which they procure them that is of importance. Currently, there are two ways organizations are able to get weapons: the black market and state sponsorship. To stop both of these, states have to be willing to stop the transfer of weapons into terrorist hands. The black market is fueled by conflict as retreating and dying soldiers leave their weapons behind to be picked up and the demand for weapons rises as people feel unsafe in the violent climate. Currently, a special reporter for the New York Times stated, vendors claim that they can provide in the excess of a hundred weapons in less than a week, a daunting thought for any one thinking of how many people can be killed with that many weapons. The black market for weapons requires the participation of states to end it. They need to account for their weapons, and take steps to ensure that they do not fall into the hands of illicit weapons dealers. They also need to ensure that illegal vendors are unable to produce weapons to fuel this black market of death. However, the instances where it is states that are enabling terrorist organizations to procure weapons is highly unsettling, and unfortunately, there is nothing anyone can do about it. The supplying of weapons by states to select organizations is a historically accepted method of intervening in an area without committing troops, and there is nothing out there except for the individual state to determine that they are not allowed to facilitate the transfer of those weapons. This is especially true if they are giving weapons to terrorists who reside in states with weak governments who are unable to maintain order within their own borders.

CONCLUSION

Technological progress has improved life and allowed us to do things we would never have been able to do without it. However, with these applications of science comes also the responsibility of using them correctly and in such a way as to never allow genocide or crimes against humanity to occur because of them. In order to do this, we must regulate how technology can be used in times of armed conflict. This means that international humanitarian law must adapt itself in order to take into account the technological progress of the various militaries and appropriately determine when, where, and which weapons can be used in armed conflicts. Unfortunately, humanity has collectively failed at this basic responsibility. We have repeatedly failed to regulate our technology in such a manner that it does not enable massive violations of humanitarian law. This has happened namely because of three things on the international scene: state interests, the actions of non regulated and non government organizations, and conventional law. States will always resist the regulation of their military arsenal because it would limit their ability to act in their times of greatest need. Then the presence of non regulated entities who use technology for evil purposes further increases the duty of those who are regulated to prevent unregulated entities from using technology in a manner that discredits the entire human race. Finally, the nature of conventional law further undermines attempts to regulate the use of technology in warfare, thus enabling the occurrence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

In short, humanity has failed in its duty to ensure that the products of our intellect are not used in perpetrating war crimes or crimes against humanity. However, this does not mean that we can stop trying. It simply means that we have to continue to try to regulate the use of technology in times of war and conflict. We can still try to regulate the black market of weapons, prevent militaries from using their weapons of indiscriminately, prevent terrorist organizations from attaining support for their misguided missions to spread terror, and whatever else comes up from the human mind. In the end, the weapons themselves are of little importance. A gun on the ground is but a piece of metal, and a radio station is just that, a harmless radio station. What matters is how we, as human beings, use our technology. A gun needs a man to shoot it, and a radio station needs a man to broadcast a signal to others. Wether the gun is used in war or to shoot civilians is up to the man. Wether the message sent on the radio is a news broadcast or a call for genocide is up  to the man behind the microphone.