Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Digital and non-digital modes of governing the international legal order co-exist. This imbrication brings with it a particular constellation of actors, new sites and processes of governance and new modalities of law-making. Claudia Aradau and Tobias Blanke, in Algorithmic Reason, guide us through the complex cartographies of global governance. They eloquently map the networks and infrastructures of algorithmic governance and show how they affect the relations between the governing and the governed. Thereby, they help us visualize the imbrication of the local and the global, of private and public infrastructural logics beyond the static binaries that shape our traditional understanding of the international legal order. Throughout multiple case studies, two major transversal claims emerge in the book that are relevant to international lawyers. The book, in my view, argues for (i) an anti-solutionist and (ii) an anti-formalist analysis of global algorithmic governance. As these two transversal claims are not always fully unpacked and explicitly embraced, this review essay aims to draw the contours of these claims, unpack them and show how valuable they can be to think about global algorithmic governance and the functions of international law in the equation.

AbstractEndless armed conflicts against terrorist groups put civilian populations at risk. Since France has been involved in the Sahel from 2013 onwards, transnational non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) of extended geographical and temporal scope against groups designated as terrorists are not a US exception anymore. NIACs against terrorist groups, conducted not only by the United States but also by France, persist and have been reconfigured around threat anticipation. How can anticipatory warfare be best constrained? This article argues that it can be best done through more constraining rules regulating target selection in NIACs and, in particular, by redefining the notion of continuous combat function (CCF). Many elements explored in this article indicate that the United States and France select targets that they pre-designate as terrorists, before these targets are engaged in hostilities. Instead of responding to the observed participation of these individuals in hostilities, strikes are based on contextual and behavioural elements ahead or outside of such moments. This paper argues that when war consists of threat anticipation, it becomes very extensive and particularly risky for civilians. Furthermore, recent State practice in the counterterrorism context reveals the pitfalls of the notions of direct participation in hostilities and CCF as defined in the 2009 International Committee of the Red Cross Interpretive Guidance. Outside this context, the interpretations proposed in the Interpretive Guidance might seem sufficient to constrain target selection processes and to protect civilian populations. However, when applied to armed conflicts that are driven by threat anticipation, the pitfalls of these interpretations emerge. I formulate a critique of these interpretations as being partly responsible for anticipatory warfare and propose an alternative theory for the CCF test.

Published online: 15 May 2020 ; Silence is deceitful. While France has not publicly articulated a legal framework for its war on terror, its silence should not be taken for the absence of a well-defined military strategy and corresponding legal rationale. While the geographical and temporal scope of the United States' war on terror has been highly debated from a legal point of view and led the US to develop extensive interpretations of the laws regulating the use of force, France's military strategy remains largely underexplored by lawyers. This contribution brings to light that France frames its involvement in foreign territories as part of a unique war against jihadist groups, going a step further to the US' war against "Al-Qaeda and associated forces". Because France claims to fight against terrorism in the respect of international law, but without providing its interpretation of it in detail, identifying its military strategy allows me to determine what legal interpretations such strategy implies to embrace. These interpretations are much closer to the US' than anyone would admit. The paper outlines the relevant legal standards applicable to the situations of use of force against terrorist groups and focuses on France, in an attempt to force the conversation on what it has been doing in the Sahel region, and following which legal interpretations of the norms regulating the use of force.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement No 340956 - IOW - The Individualisation of War: Reconfiguring the Ethics, Law, and Politics of Armed Conflict.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement No 340956 - IOW - The Individualisation of War: Reconfiguring the Ethics, Law, and Politics of Armed Conflict.