Battfield Next

On today’s podcast we have an interview with CDR Jonathan Shumate and MAJ Vo-Laria Brooks from the US Army JAG Corps’ Center for Law and Military Operations (also known as “CLAMO”), a Directorate of the The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center in Charlottesville, VA. CDR Shumate serves as the Coast Guard Advanced Operational Law Studies Fellow. MAJ Brooks serves as the Director of Domestic Operations and National Guard Bureau (NGB) Liaison where she is responsible for teaching Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) at TJAGLCS, as well as providing support for the DSCA mission for the 54 States and Territories of the National Guard.

MAJ Wellemeyer, CDR Shumate, and MAJ Brooks discuss CLAMO’s role and function, the DSCA process, and some of the legal issues the Army faces in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode:

00:00 Episode Introduction

01:23 CLAMO’s Role and Function

03:21 What is DSCA?

04:30 DSCA Process (Tiered Approach)

11:01 Risk to commanders of not following DSCA process

13:38 Dual-Status Commander

17:15 Dual-Status Commanders on order during COVID-19 pandemic

17:57 The concept of a “Mega” Dual-Status Commander

19:26 Current utilization of the National Guard

22:56 Comparing the response to the COVID-19 pandemic to that of previous humanitarian crises

24:37 End of Episode

If you’re interested in learning more about some of the topics covered during this episode, we recommend the following additional reading and resources:

“The Military and the Pandemic: An Explainer of the National Guard’s Role in the COVID-19 Response” by Dennis Bittle
DSCA: Interagency Partner Guide for Disasters and Emergencies, July 2015
Public Documents Published by the Center for Law and Military Operations
CLAMO Resources (CAC Only)

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email at [email protected], or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to “Battlefield Next” on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.

*Music by Joseph McDade

The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

On today’s podcast we have an interview with Mr. Fred Borch, Professor of Legal History and Leadership at The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, and the Regimental Historian and Archivist for the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps. On today’s episode, Mr. Borch and MAJ Wellemeyer discuss the Ansell-Crowder controversy of 1917-1920, and its relation to the modern military justice system.

The episode begins with Mr. Borch describing the relationship between modern courts-martial and federal courts (Article 36, UCMJ), and the state of the military justice practice in 1917 under the Articles of War. He provides a historical backdrop of Major General Enoch Crowder and Brigadier General/Lieutenant Colonel Samuel Ansell, their dispute, and how the dispute put courts-martial practice onto the path to judicialization.

Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode:

00:00 Episode Introduction

01:12 Modern military justice practice

02:39 The Army JAG Corps in 1917-1918

06:39 MG Enoch Crowder and BG/LTC Samuel Ansell

08:32 1917 Camp Logan Court-Martial

13:42 The Articles of War

17:20 MG Crowder’s view v. BG Ansell’s view

20:16 Result of suggested reforms

22:52 Path to judicialization/modern courts-martial practice

25:03 Book Recommendations

31:34 End of Episode

If you’re interested in learning more about some of the topics covered during this episode, we recommend the following additional reading and resources:

“The Crowder-Ansell Dispute: The Emergence of General Samuel T. Ansell” by MAJ Terry Brown

Mr. Borch’s Book Recommendations:

“Born at Reveille” by COL (RET) Russell P. Reeder
“Dorothy Must Die”; “The Wicked Will Rise”; “The Yellow Brick War” by Danielle Paige
“Cinder” by Marissa Meyer

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email at [email protected], or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to “Battlefield Next” on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.

*Music by Joseph McDade

The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

On today’s episode, we have an interview of Mr. John Norton Moore, Walter L. Brown Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law, by Major Travis J.Covey, Vice Chair and Professor of Law in the National Security Law Department at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. The episode is an addendum to the Thirteenth Waldemar A. Solf and Marc L. Warren Chair lecture in National Security Law given to by Mr. Moore at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School.

The episode begins with an introduction of Mr. Moore by Major Covey. The discussion addresses Mr. Moore’s lecture, “Defending Defense in the Law of Jus Ad Bellum.” Mr. Moore discusses the origin of the crisis, why defending the effective right of defense is important, the distinction between the US view of treaty interpretation and the European view, ambiguities in the conventions, and what he would like to see going forward.

Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode:

00:00 Episode Introduction
02:09 Mr. Moore’s Background in National Security Law
03:40 Overview of Mr. Moore’s lecture: “Defending Defense in the Law of Jus Ad Bellum”.
05:18 Origin of the crisis
06:47 Returning to the effective right of defense
11:08 Distinction between the US view of treaty interpretation versus the European view
13:26 Ambiguities in the conventions
15:37 Looking forward: protecting the right of defense
16:45 Closing remarks
18:09 End of the episode

A list of publications and contributions by Mr. Moore is available here.

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email, or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to "Battlefield Next" on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.

*Music by Joseph McDade
The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

On today’s podcast we have an is an interview of Mr. Donald Polden, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law at Santa Clara University, by Brigadier General Joseph B. Berger, the commanding general of the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, and Colonel Jerrett W. Dunlap, Dean of The Judge Advocate General’s School. The podcast is an addendum to a lecture on “Legal Leadership” given by Mr. Polden to the students of the 68th graduate course.

The episode begins with an introduction of Mr. Polden by COL Dunlap. The discussion addresses why leadership is important in the legal profession, and what makes leadership different in the legal profession. It also addresses the importance of leadership to innovation and leading change, cross-generational challenges in the legal profession, principled counsel, and the future of legal leadership.
Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode:

00:00 Episode Introduction
00:56 Biography of Mr. Polden
02:20 The importance of legal leadership
03:08 The importance of leadership in the legal profession
04:10 The balance of competition with coordination, cooperation, and collaboration in the legal profession
06:19 The importance of leadership to innovation and leading
change
08:19 Cross-generational challenges in the legal profession
11:08 Humility and leadership
13:20 Principled Counsel
16:55 The future of legal leadership
17:58 Leaders on risk and failure
19:18 Closing remarks

If you’re interested in learning more about some of the topics covered during this episode, we recommend the following additional reading and resources:
“Lawyers, Leadership, and Innovation”, by Donald J. Polden.
“Leadership Matters: Lawyers' Leadership Skills and
Competencies”, by Donald J. Polden.

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email, or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to "Battlefield Next" on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.
*Music by Joseph McDade

The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

On today’s podcast, we have an interview with three recent graduates of the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course: First Lieutenant Briana Kolota; First Lieutenant Asia Buss; and First Lieutenant Mandi Ford. MAJ Wellemeyer and MAJ Coffey had the opportunity to sit down with them to discuss what made them choose the JAG Corps, their commissioning sources, and their experiences in the application process, the Direct Commission Officer Course, and at the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course.
Due to the episode’s length, it is divided into two parts. In part one, MAJ Wellemeyer and I discuss with them such topics as: why they chose the Army JAG Corps, their commissioning sources, JAG Corps internships, their experiences with the application, accession, and assignment process, and preparing for and reporting to the Direct Commission Officer Course.

Part two covers their experiences at the Direct Commission Officer Course, the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course, the advice they would give future applicants, and what they think the JAG Corps can do to improve the application and accession process.
Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode, along with hyperlinks to further information and resources:

Part Two
0:00 Inprocessing and Training at the Direct Commission Officer Course
01:08 A typical day at the Direct Commission Officer Course
03:05 Impressions of training as a brand new Lieutenant
05:12 Learning to wear the uniform
06:54 Moving from Fort Benning to Charlottesville
07:42 A typical at the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course
08:57 The Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course class schedule
10:22 Improving the application and accession process
12:40 Advice to future applicants
13:50 End of episode

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email, or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to "Battlefield Next" on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.
*Music by Joseph McDade

The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

On today’s podcast, we have an interview with three recent graduates of the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course: First Lieutenant Briana Kolota; First Lieutenant Asia Buss; and First Lieutenant Mandi Ford. MAJ Wellemeyer and MAJ Coffey had the opportunity to sit down with them to discuss what made them choose the JAG Corps, their commissioning sources, and their experiences in the application process, the Direct Commission Officer Course, and at the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course.
Due to the episode’s length, it is divided into two parts. In part one, MAJ Wellemeyer and I discuss with them such topics as: why they chose the Army JAG Corps, their commissioning sources, JAG Corps internships, their experiences with the application, accession, and assignment process, and preparing for and reporting to the Direct Commission Officer Course.

Part two covers their experiences at the Direct Commission Officer Course, the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course, the advice they would give future applicants, and what they think the JAG Corps can do to improve the application and accession process.
Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode, along with hyperlinks to further information and resources:

Part One
00:00 Episode Introduction
01:14 Why They Chose the JAG Corps and Commissioning Sources
01:23 ROTC Educational Delay
01:52 ROTC in Law School
06:33 Direct Commission
07:33 JAG Corps Internships
10:23 The Application process
10:30 Field Screening Interview
12:59 JAG Corps
14:02 The Accession Process
15:00 The Medical Screening Process
15:48 Duty Station Assignment
17:14 Preparing for the Direct Commission Officer Course
19:02 Reporting to Fort Benning
19:48 Preparing for Army physical fitness standards
21:04 End of Part One

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email, or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to "Battlefield Next" on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.

*Music by Joseph McDade

The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

On today’s podcast we have an interview with Mr. Fred Borch about the historical events that shaped the practice of operational law by judge advocates into the robust practice area we know it as today: national security law. Mr. Borch is a Professor of Legal History and Leadership at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School where he also holds the title of Regimental Historian and Archivist.
The episode begins with Mr. Borch providing a historical backdrop about the role of lawyers in the Army from the earliest days of General George Washington's Continental Army. The discussion also addresses the infamous Mai Lai Massacre and how this event served as a catalyst for change in a judge advocate's role in operational settings.

Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode:
00:00 Episode introduction
01:10 Early role of lawyers in the Army
03:15 Impact of Mai Lai Massacre
04:29 Peers Inquiry criticized Army JAGC
12:04 Impact of Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada) - the wake up call
15:27 Impact of Operation Just Cause (Panama)
16:40 Transformation of operational law practice during Desert Shield / Desert Storm
21:40 Operational law practice after 9/11
24:42 Book recommendations
29:19 Closing remarks

If you’re interested in learning more about some of the topics covered during this episode, we recommend the following additional reading and resources:
"Rule of Engagement for Land Forces: A Matter of Training, not Lawyering" by then-MAJ Mark S. Martins
"Judge Advocates in Combat: Army Lawyers in Military Operations from Vietnam to Haiti" by Fred Borch

Mr. Borch's Book Recommendations:
"Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945" by Waldo Heinrichs and Marc S. Gallicchio
"American Slavery, American Freedom", by Edmund S. Morgan
"The Magicians" by Lev Grossman

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email, or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to "Battlefield Next" on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.

*Music by Joseph McDade

On today’s podcast, we have an interview with Professor Claire Finkelstein from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Professor Finkelstein is the founder and director of the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School. MAJ Wellemeyer had the opportunity to sit down with Professor Finkelstein at the conclusion of the Ethical Challenges in the Development of New Weaponry symposium that occurred earlier this fall. During the conversation, Professor Finkelstein explains why she founded the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, but the majority of the interview is spent discussing topics related to artificial intelligence, including: the intersection of AI and cyberwarfare, the issues with AI and legal accountability, and what judge advocates and national security law practitioners can do to navigate this rapidly evolving area of technology and the law. To listen to the interview, you can do it on your desktop here, or by typing “Battlefield Next” into the search field of your favorite podcast app.

Given our limited time, our conversation covers a small fraction of the legal, ethical, and moral issues that surround AI on the battlefield. Currently, national security law practitioners are grappling with how AI will impact the Law of Armed Conflict. For example, how does the use of AI on the battlefield affect the principles of distinction and proportionality? Does it matter whether a weapons system is defensive, offensive, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous? What are the implications of having human involvement “in the loop” or “on the loop” during the decision-making process? These are some of the issues that BG Patrick Huston, currently serving as the Assistant Judge Advocate for Military Law and Operations, addressed in his December 2018 article, “Future War and Future Law.” For even more detail on these topics, practitioners should also consider reading “Army of None” by Paul Scharre, a book that is referenced in both BG Huston’s article and MAJ Wellemeyer’s interview with Prof. Finkelstein.

More narrowly, national security law practitioners should be familiar with some of the policies pertaining to AI, including the Department of Defense (DoD) Artificial Intelligence Strategy, the Army Artificial Intelligence Strategy Annex, and DoD Directive 3000.09, the DoD policy on Autonomy in Weapons Systems. In his recent article “Are Killer Robots Really Coming? – Legal Considerations from a Hypothetical Application of Department of Defense Directive 3000.09”, LTC Ryan Beery, the current Chief of National Security Law at US Special Operations Command, addresses some of the legal considerations of complying with DoDD 3000.09 through the lens of a future war hypothetical.

Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode, along with hyperlinks to further information and resources:

00:00 Episode introduction
02:55 CERL overview
06:55 Intersection of AI and cyberwarfare
13:01 AI and accountability
18:52 Unplanned effects of AI systems
21:05 Advice for JAs and other legal practitioners
23:13 Closing remarks

If you’re interested in learning more about some of the topics covered during this episode, we recommend the following additional reading and resources that have not already been mentioned:
• "Explainable Artifical Intelligence (XAI)" by Dr. Matt Turek, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
• "The Law that Applies to Autonomous Weapon Systems" by LTC Jeffrey Thurnher
• "Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War" by P.W. Singer and August Cole
• "MWI Podcast: Autonomous Weapons and the Next War", Modern War Institute, 30 July 2019

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email, or login below and provide a comment. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to “Battlefield Next” on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.

*Music by Joseph McDade
The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

Our first podcast is an interview with General (Ret.) Joseph Votel. General Votel is recently retired from the United States Army after a 39 year career. The last position he held was as the Commander of US Central Command from March 2016 to March 2019. To listen to our interview with General (Ret.) Votel, you can do so on your desktop here, or by typing “Battlefield Next” into the search field of your favorite podcast app.

MAJ JJ Wellemeyer sat down with General Votel following his remarks at the “Ethical Challenges in the Development of New Weaponry” symposium hosted by the Center for the Rule of Law (CERL) at the University of Pennsylvania in September 2019. During his keynote address, General Votel discussed the ethical and moral implications of the evolving nature of warfare, and through the lens of his own personal experiences on the battlefield, he discussed how technological innovations have changed how we fight and how our adversaries do so as well. During the interview MAJ Wellemeyer asked him questions about his keynote address, professional development, leadership, and the qualities that make an effective judge advocate.

Below is a timeline of some of the subject-areas discussed during the episode:

00:00 Episode introduction
01:30 Beginning of interview with General (Ret.) Votel
01:57 Integration of judge advocates in planning/operations process
02:44 Gaining a commander's trust
04:33 Ramifications of a failure in standards
07:07 Professional development
09:58 Advice for JA Graduate Course and JAOBC students
13:46 General (Ret.) Votel's book recommendation
15:03 Closing remarks

If you’re interested in learning more about some of the topics covered during this episode, we recommend the following additional reading and resources:

• "Retiring Gen. Joseph Votel recalls challenges of CentCom, the Middle East" by Howard Altman, Tampa Bay Times
• General (Ret.) Stanley McChrystal's leadership philosophy: "Listen, learn...then lead"
• ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession
•"Once An Eagle" by Anton Myrer TJAG/DJAG Lifelong Learning Reading List

For more information related to FCD you can follow us on Twitter @jagfcd or by visiting our webpage. If you have recommendations or suggestions about future topics or guests, please send us an email, or you can leave us a comment by signing in below. Finally, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes and subscribe to “Battlefield Next” on your favorite podcast app. While this is a podcast created by US Army Judge Advocates from Future Concepts Directorate, our goal is to reach other judge advocates and lawyers across the DoD, law students, and members of academia. Your reviews help make this possible.

For more information about the US Army JAG Corps, you can go here. If you’re interested in joining the Army JAG Corps, you can get more information by contacting the Judge Advocate Recruiting Office (JARO) or by visiting their webpage.

*Music by Joseph McDade

The views expressed on the podcast are the views of the participants and do not necessarily represent those of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US Government.

Welcome to the first blog of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps Future Concepts Directorate (FCD). We are excited to introduce our directorate and the interesting topics FCD will be discussing over the next year and beyond.

The FCD is the JAG Corps’ think tank and is one of four directorates of the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center located on the campus of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Its mission is to serve as the JAG Corps’ focal point on the study of the law of future armed conflict by assessing the legal requirements of the future operational environment. It also reviews Army doctrine on behalf of the JAG Corps, and provides the intellectual foundation to design, develop, and field a globally responsive future JAG Corps.

FCD Mission

The FCD operates along three primary lines of effort: future conflict, doctrine, and strategic initiatives. First, it seeks to be the premier organization within the United States Government on the study of the law of future conflict. We think of this broadly as applying the law of armed conflict to the future operational environment, or LOAC-F. FCD partners or engages with any organization thinking about technology and its applications on the future battlefield. Second, FCD provides timely, ethical, responsive, and purposeful support and analysis to the Army’s doctrine development organizations. Third, FCD provides the same support to the JAG Corps’ own strategic initiatives in order to prepare its legal professionals to support future multi-domain operations.

Resources

Our goal is to make the FCD website a one stop shop for all matters pertaining to LOAC-F with news, analysis, and reports from our experts and partners. The site, found here, will contain links to relevant articles from the field and Academia, frequent blog posts, links to the FCD Podcast entitled “Battlefield NEXT, and news about technology, law, and future warfare.

We will also be highlighting interesting and useful information on The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School’s Lifelong Learning website. Lifelong Learning can be found here and contains noteworthy news, articles, and resources that can be used for professional development.

The FCD will also be providing expanded reading lists that include examples of what our military leaders are reading about the military profession and strategic environment. However, we will also include other works that might seemingly be unrelated to our dual profession, but nevertheless offer different lenses through which we see issues. The objective in this respect is to spark creativity and inspiration in order to see the future more clearly. A few examples of works we are reading right now include Ghost Fleet by P.W. Singer and August Cole, The Light Brigade by Karmen Hurly, Army of None by Paul Scharre, and East West Street by Philippe Sands. We have also been listening to the Podcasts Revisionist History, Hardcore History, Bombshell, and the podcast of the Modern War Institute at West Point.

Regular Blog Posts

Substantive topics we will be attempting to tackle this year will be the use of artificial intelligence, offensive cyber operations, space operations including ground operations in space, autonomous weapons, ultrasonic effects, low yield tactical nuclear devices, emerging biological threats, deep fakes and their dangers to national security, private special operations capable organizations in light of Syria and Crimea, and effects of technology on future civilian populations.

Although there is much discussion about the use of emerging technology on the battlefield, many future conflicts will still bear similar characteristics as present-day conflicts in places like Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Accordingly, we will continue to explore chronic issues in warfare that will likely remain issues in the future including the use of explosive ordnance in urban areas as cities get larger and more densely populated, the continuing unlawful practice of targeting medical personnel and facilities, and accountability mechanisms.

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons Systems

Artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems offer unique challenges for the future battlefield largely due to the uncertainty about how they will be employed. Accordingly, we will be giving extra emphasis on AI and autonomous weapons. Using the four pillars of the Law of Armed Conflict as his analytical foundation – military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity – COL Jeffrey Thurnher argues that the legal risks associated with autonomous weapon systems can be operationally mitigated. He also states correctly that the “lack of a human to hold accountable does not undermine the lawfulness of the weapon system.”

Nevertheless, a lawful weapon might be used in an unlawful manner, and although the law of armed conflict does not require accountability (the decision to prosecute a suspect is left to prosecutorial discretion, but sometimes required for societal or political reasons), a state may still wish to pursue accountability. Further, the law does require states to be able to control the effects of their weapons. For this reason, methods of war crime accountability must remain an important part of the discussion for fear of eliminating the option to prosecute a war crime due to the lack of an attributable human.

Vulnerability

The use of technology necessarily creates vulnerabilities from technology. Consider this scenario. Sometime in the future, an army deploys a lethal autonomous robot. The opponent, suffering from local tactical overmatch, conducts a cyber-attack on the robot causing it to be unable to distinguish its targets. The robot kills civilians, and the enemy exploits the tragedy by publishing photographs of the aftermath across all manner of social media. Maybe the enemy even exacerbates the situation by publishing photographs that have been enhanced using deep fake technology leading the public to believe the victims were children. Public outrage demands accountability and military leaders conduct an investigation revealing that both the manufacturer and the military knew that this particular weapon system was vulnerable to cyber-attack. Who is responsible? Some of our academic partners, like Dr. Rebecca Crootof at the University of Richmond School of Law, are tackling this very issue.

In 1716, Christopher Bullock wrote in The Cobbler of Preston “Tis impossible to be sure of any thing but Death and Taxes.” Had he written this in the present day, he might also have included “technology that breaks.” It is not a matter of whether technology will malfunction, but when. And when it happens with objects designed to cause destruction, unintended consequences can be catastrophic. International law lacks a criminal negligence mens era, and the law of armed conflict certainly contains no products liability provision. Will states in the future demand such a regime? Will there be formal dispute settlement mechanisms such as the one outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea? Will dispute mechanisms be just for state parties like the International Court of Justice, or will private parties also be able to participate? As a matter of national policy, which states will voluntarily provide compensation for victims, and which states will not? What about inadvertent data spillage by government actors resulting in the public disclosure of private information? Will governments voluntarily allow affirmative claims?

Closer to home, American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson stated, “once you have an innovation culture, even those who are not scientists or engineers – poets, actors, journalists – they, as communities, embrace the meaning of what it is to be scientifically literate.” The U.S. Army is in the process or re-designing its acquisition system in order to be more responsive to emerging and future threats. Will American military lawyers need to be more scientifically literate and get involved earlier in the research, development, and acquisition process?

The law of future conflict is full of complexities and uncertainties such as these. The FCD will be confronting these issues straight-on in order to prepare the JAG Corps for future conflict. Whether we are discussing warp drives, robot soldiers, or tactical direct energy weapons, no topic is off limits to us and there are no bad ideas. If you have a topic you would like to discuss you can always reach us at [email protected]. We look forward to partnering with you and holding interesting discussions.

LTC Matt Krause
Director, Future Concepts Directorate
Charlottesville, Virginia