Latest news with #IHL
GMA Network
2 hours ago
- GMA Network
8 suspected rebels killed in Northern Samar clashes
Eight suspected members of the New People's Army (NPA) were killed during armed encounters in Barangay San Isidro, Las Navas, Northern Samar on Thursday, the Philippine Army's 8th Infantry 'Stormtroopers' Division (8ID) said Friday. In a statement, the military said a concerned civilian provided information to the state forces about a group of armed men supposedly conducting extortion and threatening the farmers in the area. The 8ID said its troops at 2:30 a.m. launched an assault on a supposed hideout of the suspected rebels allegedly surrounded by International Humanitarian Law (IHL)-banned Anti-Personnel Mines, which prompted the military to call for fire support. Seven suspected rebels were killed in the initial clash. Around 10:00 a.m., the military said another clash occurred as the reinforcing troops of the 803rd Infantry Brigade tracked down fleeing suspected rebels going west of the first encounter site. One suspected rebel was killed in the second clash. The military did not disclose any casualties from the camp of the state forces. Recovered from the encounter sites were five M16 rifles and two R4 rifles with one M203 grenade launcher attached. "We have repeatedly called on them to return to their families, but this group continues to cling to their twisted ideology that has claimed the lives of countless Filipinos,' Joint Task Force Storm and 8ID commander Major General Adonis Ariel G. Orio said. 'We therefore reaffirm our call to the remaining members of the CTGs, this may be your best chance to lay down your arms, abandon the armed struggle, and return to the fold of the law. We will not stop until Eastern Visayas is free from your acts of terror. We will hit you hard," he added. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Bangkok Post
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Time to act on information warfare
As tensions escalate along the Thai-Cambodian border, the unfolding conflict has become not only a confrontation of arms but also a war of narratives. For many in Thailand, this is the first time war has felt real. Not distant, not historical, but tangible: fighter jets in the sky, news of casualties, fear seeping into the national consciousness. And yet, what we see and feel may not be the full story. Alongside physical warfare, a more insidious struggle is taking place; one waged through misinformation, propaganda, and psychological manipulation. Call it by what it is -- information warfare. While conventional war leaves craters and shrapnel, information warfare leaves confusion, hatred, and division. Truths are twisted, images manipulated, and emotions weaponised. The recent Facebook post by a prominent Cambodian public figure, which accused the Royal Thai Air Force of using chemical weapons, accompanied by an image of a California DC-10 firefighting plane spreading pink-coloured flame retardant to tackle fire, was not an isolated misstep, but could rather be seen as a calculated provocation. The intent is clear: inflame public sentiment, stir outrage, and escalate tensions; not through troops or tanks, but through a post and a click. This weaponisation of information is not just reckless; it is strategic. It is disinformation deployed with purpose, and it raises a crucial legal question: is this kind of warfare covered under international law? The short answer is: not quite. International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the law of armed conflict, was built around conventional warfare: tanks, trenches, and treaties. The Geneva Conventions, the cornerstone of IHL, are designed to protect civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded, and medical personnel during armed conflict. They define the rules for when and how force may be used and who may be targeted. But IHL is showing its age. Drafted in the aftermath of World War II, these conventions were never intended to regulate digital conflict. Cyberattacks, autonomous weapon systems, and psychological manipulation via social media were simply beyond the imagination of the 1949 drafters. As such, these texts are ill-equipped to confront the realities of 21st-century warfare, particularly the kind now unfolding between Thailand and Cambodia. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has acknowledged this gap. While reaffirming that any use of force, whether physical or cyber, must comply with the UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which prohibits aggression, the organisation has also recognised the growing challenge that digital operations pose to civilian protection. What, then, is information warfare? Information warfare (IW) is a broad term encompassing a range of activities intended to influence, disrupt, or manipulate public perception, decision-making processes, and communications infrastructure. These include hacking, disinformation, propaganda, and psychological operations, carried out through social media platforms, encrypted apps, and even AI-generated content. In today's conflict, the Thai public has been bombarded with false narratives, inflammatory images, and viral accusations. IW has reached Thai citizens not just on the battlefield, but in their living rooms. With internet access and smartphones, everyone becomes a potential target and an unknowing participant. The law is currently struggling to keep up. Under IHL, protection hinges on concepts like "attack", "combatant", and "military objective": terms that assume physical consequences. Geneva Convention IV, which governs the protection of civilians, prohibits acts such as targeting civilian objects and collective punishment. But it is silent on the use of harmful but non-kinetic tactics like online incitement, election interference, or coordinated psychological destabilisation campaigns. Unless a direct, tangible link to physical harm can be proven, these digital acts remain in a legal grey zone. And yet we know, from bitter experience, that words can kill. Hate speech spread through digital platforms has been linked to ethnic violence in Myanmar, communal riots in India, and even genocide in Rwanda, where radio propaganda laid the foundation for mass atrocities. The threshold between speech and violence is thinner than we think, especially when incitement is deliberate and systematic. So, can international law be stretched to meet this moment? One promising avenue lies in International Human Rights Law (IHRL). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a state party, explicitly prohibits "any propaganda for war" and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. These provisions can, and should, be invoked when information warfare crosses the line from opinion to incitement. Moreover, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides legal grounds to prosecute individuals who incite or participate in attacks against civilian populations, especially when such acts are part of an official policy or strategy. In theory, information warfare that results in real-world violence could meet the criteria for crimes against humanity or war crimes. But in practice, accountability is elusive. Building a legal case that links a viral post to a violent act requires extraordinary evidence. The threshold for criminal prosecution at the international level is high, and digital trails are often obscured or erased. Prosecuting IW under current international legal frameworks remains a daunting task. So where does this leave us? It leaves us with responsibility. While international mechanisms may be slow to respond, states can, and must, act. Thailand cannot afford to be reactive. It must engage proactively on all fronts: legal, diplomatic, communicative, and societal. First, it must counter falsehoods with facts swiftly and transparently. Government communication channels should be mobilised to correct misinformation in real time. Silence or hesitation creates a vacuum that misinformation will eagerly fill. Second, Thailand must work with digital platforms to identify and remove harmful content. Collaboration with tech companies, civil society, and international partners is essential to strengthen content moderation and counter-speech. Third, the government should work through diplomatic channels to raise the issue in regional forums such as Asean. If information warfare is the new front line, then a collective response is needed. Thailand could spearhead an Asean initiative to develop a regional code of digital conduct, guiding principles for state and non-state actors on disinformation, election integrity, and hate speech. Fourth, it is time to invest in digital literacy. A population equipped to discern truth from manipulation is a powerful antidote to propaganda. Civil society and educational institutions should be empowered to teach media literacy, critical thinking, and responsible digital engagement. Finally, Thailand has an opportunity to shape the future of law itself. By pushing for the modernisation of IHL and the development of soft law instruments governing cyber and information operations, Thailand can help set the agenda for how wars are fought and how civilians are protected in the digital age. The current conflict is dangerous, but it also presents a moment of clarity. The old laws are no longer enough. The battlefield has expanded, and so must our tools for peace and accountability. The drama may wear many faces, but it is law, truth, and cooperation that must take centre stage. Assistant Professor Pawat Satayanurug, PhD, is the Vice Dean of Research and Academic Resources, Programme Director for the Master of Laws (Thai Programme) at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Law.
The Herald Scotland
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Why we must keep humans at the heart of AI in warfare
Since 2016, discussions of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS have been ongoing, but International Humanitarian Law (IHL) still lacks any specific, binding regulations relating to AI. As noted by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) President Mirjana Spoljaric, AI in war is 'no longer an issue for tomorrow', but rather 'an urgent humanitarian priority today', requiring the immediate 'negotiation of new legally binding international rules'. Accordingly, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres recommended, in his 2023 New Agenda for Peace, that 'a legally binding instrument' to prohibit and/or regulate AI weapons be concluded by 2026. Read more The ICRC has stressed that responsibility in warfare must remain with humans. 'Human control must be maintained,' it argues, and limits on autonomy urgently established 'to ensure compliance with international law and to satisfy ethical concerns'. In 2022, the MoD itself echoed this sentiment. It stated that only human soldiers 'can make instinctive decisions on the ground in a conflict zone; improvise on rescue missions during natural disasters; or offer empathy and sympathy.' The then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace added that 'at its heart, our Army relies on the judgment of its own individuals.' A recruitment campaign at the time carried the tagline: 'Technology will help us do incredible things. But nothing can do what a soldier can do.' Colonel Nick Mackenzie, then Assistant Director for Recruitment, highlighted that, while 'technology is really, really important… there is always somebody, a person, behind that technology,' who is ultimately responsible for its use and the decisions it enables. Since then, however, the use of AI-enabled rapid target identification systems in contemporary conflicts has grown rapidly, with notable examples being Lavender and Where's Daddy (Israel/Palestine), Saker and Wolly (Russia/Ukraine). A human being is generally still required in order to engage any lethal effects, but technological capabilities are already being developed to remove human input from the targeting process altogether. Against this backdrop, the MoD's Strategic Defence Review 2025, released last month, calls for 'greater use of autonomy and Artificial Intelligence within the UK's conventional forces' to deliver 'greater accuracy, lethality, and cheaper capabilities'. 'As in Ukraine,' the Review continues, 'this would provide greater accuracy, lethality, and cheaper capabilities – changing the economics of defence.' One example is Project ASGARD, which will help the Army locate and strike enemy targets at greater distances using AI as a 'force multiplier'. This is just one of over 400 AI-related projects being run by the MoD. What remains unclear, but is critical from a legal and moral perspective, is what role human judgment will play in these projects and the military operations they support. Computer scientist Pei Wang has said that while AI can behave like human intelligence in some ways, it is fundamentally different. AI shouldn't replace human intelligence, but rather support and enhance it – helping people make better-informed decisions. Human-robot interaction specialist Karolina Zawieska warns of the need to distinguish between what is human and what is only human-like. AI systems often function as a 'black box', meaning it is not always clear how or why they produce certain outcomes. This creates serious problems for human understanding, control, and accountability. When properly used, AI can support situational awareness and help human operators make better decisions. In this sense, it is a tool – not a decision-maker. But if too much control is handed over to AI, we risk removing human judgment and with it, moral responsibility. Professor Jeff McMahan, moral philosopher at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, has argued that it is essential for combatants to feel 'deep inhibitions about tackling non-combatants'. However accurate or efficient AI may be, these inhibitions cannot be replicated by algorithms. As political scientist Valerie Morkevičius has pointed out, the emotional and moral 'messiness' of war is a feature, not a flaw because it slows down violence and prompts ethical reflection. Military decisions should be difficult. This is why human judgment must remain at the centre. While defence and national security are reserved for Westminster, Scotland plays a key role in UK defence, from the bases at Faslane and Lossiemouth to the defence research carried out at Scottish universities. The issues raised in the Strategic Defence Review therefore carry particular relevance here. UN Secretary General António Guterres has recommended that 'a legally binding instrument' to prohibit and/or regulate AI weapons be concluded by 2026 (Image: Getty) Scotland's approach to AI, shaped by the AI Strategy (2021) and the Scottish AI Playbook (2024), is notably human-centred. Informed by Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) principles, both documents stress the importance of trustworthy, ethical, and inclusive AI that improves people's lives. They highlight the need for transparency, human control, and robust accountability. Though not military in scope, these principles nevertheless offer a useful framework for a Scottish perspective on the development and use of AI for military purposes: keeping people at the centre, and ensuring that technology supports rather than replaces human agency. The goal should not be the delegation of human decisions to machines, or the replacement of human beings with technology. Rather, AI should support and strengthen human decision-making – a tool for the enactment of human agency: a technological means for strictly human ends. Dr Joanna LD Wilson is a Lecturer in Law at the University of the West of Scotland
Ammon
6 days ago
- Politics
- Ammon
ICRC president calls to end abhorrent suffering in Gaza
Ammon News - New York- The President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mirjana Spoljaric, called for urgent collective action by states to end what she described as the "abhorrent suffering" endured by civilians in the Gaza Strip as a result of the months-long war. In a statement, Spoljaric said that there is no excuse for what is happening in Gaza. The scale of human suffering and the stripping of human dignity have long exceeded every acceptable standard – both legal and moral. Every minute without a ceasefire risks civilian lives. The level of suffering inflicted on civilians because of warfare conducted indiscriminately and the extreme deprivation of the essentials for survival is abhorrent, she added. People are being relentlessly killed in hostilities and while attempting to get food. Children are dying because they do not have enough to eat. Families are being forced to flee again and again in search of safety that does not exist. The ICRC has more than 350 staff on the ground in Gaza, many of whom are also struggling to find enough food and clean water, Spoljaric indicated, adding: "This tragedy must end now – immediately and decisively. Every political hesitation, every attempt at justification of the horrors being committed under international watch will forever be judged as a collective failure to preserve humanity in war." Spoljaric pointed out that states must uphold their obligation under the Geneva Conventions to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law (IHL), including by ensuring that the arms they transfer do not contribute to violations of IHL. States must do more to ensure that the parties to the conflict fulfil their obligations under IHL. This means resuming the rapid, unimpeded and impartial delivery of humanitarian relief across Gaza. This means releasing all remaining hostages immediately and unconditionally. This means allowing the ICRC to resume visits to Palestinian detainees in Israeli places of detention, she stated.
Bangkok Post
6 days ago
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
RTA dismisses 'fake temple strike' news
The Royal Thai Army (RTA) has dismissed as groundless Cambodian media reports accusing the Thai military of targeting Cambodian civilians and severely damaging the Preah Vihear temple, a World Heritage site, during Thursday's airstrikes. In a written statement yesterday, the RTA described these reports as "disinformation" aimed at political manipulation and an attempt to justify unilateral aggression. The RTA categorically denies these allegations, it said. Conducted in accordance with self-defence, international law and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), all Thai operations only target military threats, said the RTA. Cambodian forces, on the other hand, have fired BM-21 rockets and artillery at civilian areas in Thailand, while using "human shields", a grave violation of humanitarian principles, according to the RTA. Armed with a sense of ethics befitting a professional and modern military, the RTA insisted Thailand avoids strikes that may endanger civilians, despite having the legal right to respond to Cambodia's provocative attacks, it added. "Thailand follows international rules and acts with reason, not emotion," said the RTA. Thai air operations, if employed, use precision-guided systems, unlike Cambodia's BM-21 rocket-launching system, which lacks accuracy and control and has resulted in casualties even within Cambodia's own territory, said the RTA. "The Royal Thai Army has no intention to initiate conflict, but rather to defend Thailand's sovereignty and people with honour, professionalism and full adherence to international norms," said the RTA. The Khmer Times ran an article yesterday saying shocking evidence had emerged that Thailand had, on Thursday, bombed and damaged the Preah Vihear temple. Col Richa Suksuwanon, a deputy army spokesman, revealed that at 8.50am yesterday BM-21 rockets landed in three spots in Moo 5 village in tambon Si Wichian in Nam Yuen district of Ubon Ratchathani. Two houses and a road section in the village were consequently damaged, but no one was injured as all residents had been evacuated, said the spokesman. A fresh round of clashes erupted yesterday at around 4am in the Chong Bok and Phu Makua areas in Ubon Ratchathani and in Phanom Dong Rak district of Surin province, according to the Thai army. Cambodian forces began using heavy artillery, including BM-21 rocket launchers, prompting the forces to return fire. Elsewhere, at around 4.30am, the Cambodian side opened fire in areas around the aforementioned temple, which prompted the Thai side to respond with "barrage fire", said a source. The persistent border violence prompted the Royal Thai Navy yesterday to shut indefinitely all marine and land crossings along the Thai-Cambodian border in the coastal provinces of Chanthaburi and Trat.
