Files
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly influence legally relevant military decisions, a fundamental question arises: What role is left for humans? Despite more than a decade of legal discussions, this question remains largely unresolved, revealing deeper tensions within the foundational assumptions of international humanitarian law (IHL). Central to these tensions is a shared, yet often unexamined, conception of the human decision-maker in IHL, referred to as the Human, that is both humanistic and anthropocentric. This observation raises a pressing concern: What if the present impasse in the legal debate on the use of AI systems in military decision-making regarding the use of force resides in this very conception of the Human? This research sees this impasse as an opportunity to critically analyse IHL’s foundational assumptions surrounding its anthropocentric and humanistic conception of the Human within IHL. It uncovers these structures by bridging critical posthumanist theory with the narrative method. This research posits that the conventional conception of the Human not only renders IHL unable to effectively respond to the transformative impact of AI systems in military decision-making but also risks reinforcing inherited structures of domination. In response, the study advocates for a re-narration of the ‘Human within IHL along critical posthumanist lines. It explores how such a shift could better accommodate the realities of contemporary military decision-making. Most importantly, by rethinking the Human in IHL, this research proposes an alternative IHL narrative to navigate and reconcile the tensions at the heart of the ongoing legal discussions.