Raheel Masood
Amid accelerating technological transformations and shifting geopolitical dynamics, the foundational frameworks of International Maritime Law (IML), the Law of Armed Conflict (LoAC), and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)face challenges.
Autonomous systems, cyber prowess, and Artificial Intelligence (AI)are transforming warfare and challenging legal frameworks governing accountability and state behaviour.
IML, governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), provides comprehensive governance for the world’s oceans, describing maritime zones, navigational rights, rights to exploit resources, and environmental responsibilities. However, Autonomous Maritime Vessels (AMVs), Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs), and maritime surveillance technologies are limiting these legal norms.
AMVs challenge traditional paradigms of flag-state responsibility and maritime command. Questions arise regarding liability for collisions, environmental damage, or territorial violations. UUVs deployed for intelligence gathering or mine-laying blur the distinction between civilian and military use, raising concerns under both peacetime maritime law and LoAC. Cyber operations targeting maritime ITC infrastructure, port operations, or navigation systems pose evolving, lethal threats to maritime security. These actions may not fall within existing definitions of “use of force” or “armed attack,” complicating the invocation of self-defence under the UN Charter.
LoAC, built upon principles of “distinction”, “proportionality”, “necessity”, and “humanity”, governs hostilities and limits the effects of armed conflict. Yet emerging technologies, like the following, strain these foundations:
Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) capable of selecting and engaging targets without human intervention raise profound questions. Can AWS reliably distinguish combatants from civilians? Who bears responsibility for machine-committed unlawful acts: the programmer, commander, or the state? While Article 36 of Additional Protocol I mandates legal reviews of new weapons, AI decision-making obscurity complicates such assessments.
Cyber Warfare can disable military capabilities or manipulate information without kinetic force. The Tallinn Manual provides guidelines on applying LoAC to cyber operations, but consensus remains elusive. Does a cyberattack on a hospital grid station violate distinction principles? Does a DDoS attack constitute an armed attack justifying a military response?
AI-driven Predictive Targeting systems analysing massive datasets to predict enemy behaviour or identify high-value targets introduce new complexity. While enhancing precision and reducing collateral damage, they risk reinforcing biases, misidentifying threats, or being manipulated by adversarial inputs, making proportionality compliance increasingly difficult.
IHL protects civilians and ensures humane treatment during armed conflict, prohibiting indiscriminate attacks and upholding Prisoner of War rights. Emerging technologies, as discussed hereunder, challenge these protections.
Armed drones enable precision strikes with reduced operator risk, yet their deployment in populated areas often results in civilian casualties, raising serious IHL compliance concerns. The psychological toll of constant drone surveillance, the phenomenon of “living under drones”, may itself constitute inhumane treatment.
AI-generated disinformation and deepfakescan erode trust, instigate violence, or pollute public perception during conflicts. While not customarily addressed by IHL, such tactics may violate distinction and proportionality principles if causing indiscriminate violence or civilian harm.
Neurotechnology, exoskeletons, and bioengineering are poised to create soldiers with enhanced cognitive and physical capacities, raising dual concerns. Their legal protections under IHL if captured, and the potential for destabilising arms races centered on human augmentation.
Despite disruptive potential, a broad consensus affirms that existing legal frameworks remain applicable. The Martens Clause, emphasising civilian protection based on humanity principles and public conscience, serves as an ethical framework in this uncharted territory. However, unequal technological distribution among states obstructs consensus formation on emerging legal instruments. Divergent strategic interests and varying technological advancement create negotiating imbalances, complicating regulatory framework agreements and risking gaps between technologically advanced and developing states.
Efforts like the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems and the Tallinn Manual represent necessary steps toward clarifying the application of international law to new domains. Yet more robust mechanisms for legal review, transparency, and accountability are urgently needed. As warfare extends into cyberspace and AI realms, international law’s enduring principles must be reaffirmed and reinterpreted. The path forward lies not in abandoning existing norms but in reinforcing them through meaningful dialogue, legal review, and shared commitment to upholding the rule of law amid technological transformation. The international community must ensure innovation serves humanity rather than enabling its destruction.
—The writer is the senior research fellow of National Institute of Maritime Affairs, Pakistan.
