K
Kathleen Martin
Guest
During armed conflict, unequal power relations and structural disadvantages derived from gender dynamics are exacerbated. There has been increased recognition of these dynamics during the last several decades, particularly in the context of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict, as exemplified for example in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. Though initiatives like this resolution are a positive advancement towards the recognition of discrimination against women and structural disadvantages that they suffer from during armed conflict, other aspects of armed conflict, including, notably, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for targeting purposes, have remained resistant to insights related to gender. This is particularly problematic in the operational aspect of international humanitarian law (IHL), which contains rules on targeting in armed conflict.
The Gender Dimensions of Distinction and Proportionality
Some gendered dimensions of the application of IHL have long been recognized, especially in the context of rape and other categories of sexual violence against women occurring during armed conflict. Therefore, a great deal of attention has been paid in relation to ensuring accountability for crimes of sexual violence during times of armed conflict, while other aspects of conflict, such as the operational aspect of IHL, have remained overlooked.
In applying the principle of distinction, which requires distinguishing civilians from combatants (only the latter of which may be the target of a lawful attack), gendered assumptions of who is a threat have often played an important role. In modern warfare, often characterized by asymmetry and urban conflict and where combatants can blend in with the civilian population, some militaries and armed groups have struggled to reliably distinguish civilians. Due to gendered stereotypes of expected behavior of women and men, gender has operated as a de facto “qualified identity that supplements the category of civilian.” In practice this can mean that, for women to be targeted, IHL requirements are rigorously applied. Yet, in the case of young civilian males, the bar seems to be lower – gender considerations, coupled with other factors such as geographical location, expose them to a greater risk of being targeted.
An illustrative example of this application of the principle of distinction is in so-called “signature strikes,” a subset of drone strikes adopted by the United States outside what it considers to be “areas of active hostilities.” Signature strikes target persons who are not on traditional battlefields without individually identifying them, but rather based only on patterns of life. According to reports on these strikes, it is sufficient that the persons targeted “fit into the category ‘military-aged males’, who live in regions where terrorists operate, and ‘whose behavior is assessed to be similar enough to those of terrorists to mark them for death.’” However, as the organization Article 36 notes, due to the lack of transparency around the use of armed drones in signature strikes, it is difficult to determine in more detail what standards are used by the U.S. government to classify certain individuals as legal targets. According to a New York Times report from May 2012, in counting casualties from armed drone strikes, the U.S. government reportedly recorded “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants […] unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”
Continue reading: https://www.justsecurity.org/77970/embedding-gender-in-international-humanitarian-law-is-artificial-intelligence-up-to-the-task/
The Gender Dimensions of Distinction and Proportionality
Some gendered dimensions of the application of IHL have long been recognized, especially in the context of rape and other categories of sexual violence against women occurring during armed conflict. Therefore, a great deal of attention has been paid in relation to ensuring accountability for crimes of sexual violence during times of armed conflict, while other aspects of conflict, such as the operational aspect of IHL, have remained overlooked.
In applying the principle of distinction, which requires distinguishing civilians from combatants (only the latter of which may be the target of a lawful attack), gendered assumptions of who is a threat have often played an important role. In modern warfare, often characterized by asymmetry and urban conflict and where combatants can blend in with the civilian population, some militaries and armed groups have struggled to reliably distinguish civilians. Due to gendered stereotypes of expected behavior of women and men, gender has operated as a de facto “qualified identity that supplements the category of civilian.” In practice this can mean that, for women to be targeted, IHL requirements are rigorously applied. Yet, in the case of young civilian males, the bar seems to be lower – gender considerations, coupled with other factors such as geographical location, expose them to a greater risk of being targeted.
An illustrative example of this application of the principle of distinction is in so-called “signature strikes,” a subset of drone strikes adopted by the United States outside what it considers to be “areas of active hostilities.” Signature strikes target persons who are not on traditional battlefields without individually identifying them, but rather based only on patterns of life. According to reports on these strikes, it is sufficient that the persons targeted “fit into the category ‘military-aged males’, who live in regions where terrorists operate, and ‘whose behavior is assessed to be similar enough to those of terrorists to mark them for death.’” However, as the organization Article 36 notes, due to the lack of transparency around the use of armed drones in signature strikes, it is difficult to determine in more detail what standards are used by the U.S. government to classify certain individuals as legal targets. According to a New York Times report from May 2012, in counting casualties from armed drone strikes, the U.S. government reportedly recorded “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants […] unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”
Continue reading: https://www.justsecurity.org/77970/embedding-gender-in-international-humanitarian-law-is-artificial-intelligence-up-to-the-task/
