Over the past decade, several States have begun to develop military cyber elements capable of both defending their national interests, as well as projecting their national power, by capitalizing on a vast, borderless, interwoven internet.  By applying lessons learned from recent history, a clear case emerges for governments to assess the risk of civilian harm resulting from current cyber operations; and to evaluate how to minimize these risks as we move toward a future characterized by the proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, and the emergence of artificial intelligence. 

In this post, part of the ICRC’s series on avoiding civilian harm during military cyber operations, Pete Renals, a Principal Researcher within the Cybersecurity Industry and a Technology Fellow with the Tech, Law, & Security Program at American University, Washington College of Law – considers future developments in military cyber operations and their impact on the risk of civilian harm.

How can countries at war assess the potential harm that cyber operations may cause to civilians? In this post, part of our series on avoiding civilian harm during military cyber operations, Ellie Shami argues that while it is clear States must implement measures to minimize the harm caused by any means and methods of warfare during armed conflicts, the unique characteristics of cyberspace as a warfare domain set new challenges in doing so.

As we mark World Refugee Day this year, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has announced new and staggering figures, ones that have been growing steadily over the past ten years. By the end of 2020, 82.4 million people had been forced to flee their homes, among them 26.4 million refugees. Within these sobering statistics, three countries with a predominantly Muslim population held undesirable top rankings: Syria, with the highest number of refugees, Turkey, where most refugees were hosted, and Lebanon, which hosted the highest number of refugees relative to its population size[1]. More generally, the data confirms that, at least in the near future, the displacement crisis is unfortunately unlikely to ease up in these regions.

In this post, Dr. Ahmed Al-Dawoody, ICRC’s legal adviser on Islamic law and jurisprudence, and Dr. Tilman Rodenhäuser, ICRC legal adviser, explore the roots and scope of protection against refoulement in Islamic law. The authors share the view that an ‘indigenous, culturally viable Islamic protection framework’ can reinforce and complement the international law principle of non-refoulement.

As the global geo-political landscape continues to experience increasing fragmentation, cyberspace grows in importance as a future conflict domain. Military-strategic understandings of cyber warfare – and its value, risks and rewards – are still at a nascent stage. This creates the potential for miscalculation and mistrust. The adversarial nature of cyberspace and its largely civilian infrastructure increases the likelihood of harm and damage to non-combatants in future cyber conflict. These developments demand renewed international cooperation and commitment to ensuring stability and accountability in cyberspace.

In this post, part of the ICRC’s series on avoiding civilian harm during military cyber operations, Noëlle van der Waag-Cowling – Cyber Program Lead at the Security Institute for Governance and Leadership in Africa, Stellenbosch University – considers contemporary and future military conflict in cyberspace and possible societal risks.

The world’s strategic paradigm has shifted. Escalating global fragmentation is dismantl

In today’s armed conflicts, cyber operations are increasingly used in support of and alongside kinetic operations. Several States have publicly acknowledged such use, and many more are developing military cyber capabilities. In parallel, cyber incidents – primarily outside armed conflicts – have resulted in damage and disruption to civilian services, including hospitals, water and electrical infrastructure, and nuclear and petrochemical facilities. They offer a chilling warning about the potential humanitarian impact of military cyber operations in contemporary and future armed conflicts.

If the risk of civilian harm from military cyber operations is to be reduced, it is necessary to consider how it can be assessed and measured. In this post, Kubo Mačák, ICRC Legal Adviser, and Ewan Lawson, ICRC Military Cyber Adviser, introduce the new ICRC report from an expert meeting convened by the ICRC in January 2020 to discuss these issues. Their post also launches a new blog series on the theme of avoiding civilian harm during military cyber operations, which will feature contributions by several international experts as well as the winning essay from this year’s ICRC/Geneva Academy competition on the same theme.

The International Law Commission’s long-running project to codify and progressively develop the legal framework protecting the environment in relation to armed conflicts is nearing completion. But the process is unlikely to conclude in a treaty. Because of this, States, with the support of civil society and other actors, will have a vital role to play in ensuring the framework is implemented, and a decade’s gains are further solidified.

This post, which is part of a series on war, law and the environment co-hosted with the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), looks ahead to what should come after the Commission’s draft principles are adopted in 2022. In it, CEOBS’ Doug Weir and Stavros Pantazopoulos examine the vital role that civil society organizations can play in promoting and strengthening implementation of norms, encouraging State engagement on environmental protection, and monitoring implementation.

Protecting the environment during armed conflict is garnering renewed attention in light of the ongoing climate and environment crisis. At its root, however, this is not a new phenomenon. It can be seen in the deliberations of Muslim jurists as far back as the 7th and 8th centuries. Some shared questions between modern day international humanitarian law (IHL) and these historical debates include the basis on which the natural environment is protected, from which other legal elements stem.

In this post, part of the War, Law and the Environment blog series with the Conflict and Environment Observatory, ICRC’s Dr. Ahmed Al-Dawoody, legal advisor on Islamic law and jurisprudence, and Sarah Gale, ICRC Delegate, confirm the civilian character of the natural environment under IHL and Islamic law and that these bodies of law share similarities in the obligations of parties to a conflict to protect the environment. Such a comparison between IHL and Islamic law demonstrates the compatibility and importance of drawing on multiple legal traditions to enhance and promote the protection of the environment during armed conflict.

Every military operation conducted within a city is likely to affect the people living there, a reality reflected in the law of war rules that oblige the taking of precautionary measures to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian objects. Central to those rules is the concept of feasibility – the requirement that parties do everything that is practically possible to avoid, and in any event minimize, civilian harm. Yet the complex characteristics of cities make them the most demanding combat environment within which to implement precautionary measures. The cluttered and congested terrain might preclude the employment of a preferred means of attack, for instance, just as the unique humanitarian considerations of urban warfare might mandate military commanders to impose constraints upon the methods of attack that would be unnecessary in other theatres of combat.

In this post, concluding the first installment of our urban warfare series, Major Jon Griffiths introduces the particular obligation to take precautions in attack and the corresponding complexities posed by the characteristics of urban warfare. He concludes that although the practical possibility of taking precautionary measures during attacks is situational, it is important to understand and apply the concept of feasibility in good faith, if practitioners are to preserve the delicate balance between military necessity and humanity.

A digital revolution through a myriad of earth observation data and open-source investigations is reshaping our understanding of the environmental causes and consequences of armed conflicts. From spatio-temporal analysis to near-real time monitoring of conflicts and resulting harm from scorched earth tactics, environmental data can quickly be incorporated in humanitarian action and reconstruction efforts. In other words, the scope and severity of environmental damage in conflict is now better understood and more foreseeable. How can this transformative development influence military conduct to strengthen the protection of civilians and the environment in armed conflict?

In this post and as part of the ICRC series on war, law and the environment, Wim Zwijnenburg, project leader on Humanitarian Disarmament at PAX and contributor to Bellingcat, outlines how remote environmental data collection and field research is used and incorporated in international advocacy to boost the momentum for mainstreaming a robust environmental, peace and security agenda and ultimately reduce environmental damage in conflict.

Environmental effects of armed conflicts do not only result from the conduct of hostilities but also from toxic or hazardous remnants of war, excessive exploitation of conflict resources, unsustainable survival strategies of affected populations, or institutional collapse. In addition to the recently released ICRC Guidelines, the International Law Commission’s (ILC) work on protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts contributes to updating the international legal response to conflict-related environmental harm.

In this post and as part of our War, Law and the Environment blog series, Ambassador Marja Lehto, Special Rapporteur of the ILC, argues that there is still no coherent legal framework for the protection of the environment in and in relation to armed conflicts. The work that has been pursued over the years by the ICRC and the ILC nevertheless reveals the potential for a more coherent reading of the applicable rules.