University of Pittsburgh Law Review最新文献_第7页

Vol. 83 Administration and Faculty 第83卷管理和教师

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-12-10 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.836

Editorial Board

引用次数: 0

An Emoji Legal Dictionary 表情符号法律词典

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-11-29 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2022.834

Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Ashley Cangro

引用次数: 1

Is There a Legal Path to Commercial Mining on the Moon? 月球商业采矿有合法途径吗？

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-10-06 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.821

P. Larsen

引用次数: 3

The FCC Keeps Letting Me Be 联邦通信委员会一直放任我

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-10-06 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.826

Hala Mouzaffar

引用次数: 0

The Accountability of Software Developers for War Crimes Involving Autonomous Weapons 软件开发者对涉及自主武器的战争罪行的问责

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-10-06 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.822

E. Winter

{"title":"The Accountability of Software Developers for War Crimes Involving Autonomous Weapons","authors":"E. Winter","doi":"10.5195/lawreview.2021.822","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2021.822","url":null,"abstract":"This Article considers the extent to which the joint criminal enterprise doctrine could be invoked to hold software developers criminally accountable for violations of international humanitarian law involving autonomous weapons. More specifically, it considers whether the third part of the concept—which concerns common criminal purposes—might be brought to bear to achieve this end. The doctrine is deconstructed into five components, and each component is analyzed both in abstract and in terms of practical application. The Article establishes that, in certain contexts, software developers can and should be held accountable through this mechanism. Thus, it demonstrates that it is possible to avoid the emergence of a “responsibility gap” if, or more likely when, autonomous weapons with offensive capabilities are finally deployed on the battlefield. * The author is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in International Law at Newcastle University Law School in the United Kingdom. U N I V E R S I T Y O F P I T T S B U R G H L A W R E V I E W P A G E | 5 2 | V O L . 8 3 | 2 0 2 1 ISSN 0041-9915 (print) 1942-8405 (online) ● DOI 10.5195/lawreview.2021.822 http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu INTRODUCTION The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) defines an autonomous weapon as any weapon system with autonomy in its critical functions that can select and attack targets without human intervention.1 The extent to which the use of autonomous weapons might be compatible with substantive obligations in international humanitarian law (IHL) is a complex issue. The author has written previously on the intersection of these “killer robots” with key humanitarian law principles such as distinction,2 proportionality,3 and precaution.4 The present Article represents something of a departure because instead of considering whether the use of autonomous weapons would comply with the law, it focuses on how international criminal law secures individual accountability for violations of IHL involving such weapons. In other words, it considers potential criminal accountability where, for example, a machine targets a civilian, acts in a disproportionate manner, or fails to issue the appropriate warning. This issue is important because the value of any substantive legal rule is dependent, at least in part, on how amenable that rule is to enforcement. As the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur, Christof Heyns, noted: “Without the promise of accountability, deterrence and prevention are reduced, resulting in lower protection of civilians and potential victims of war crimes.”5 Thus, if there are no clear consequences for misusing autonomous weapons, individuals who wish to operate them may see this as a license to deploy machines that are not capable of complying with the law. The effect of this would be the deterioration of real-world protections for civilians. Of course, “robots have no moral agency” and cannot be 1 INT’L COMM. RED CROSS, AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYS.: IMPLICATIONS OF","PeriodicalId":44686,"journal":{"name":"University of Pittsburgh Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45483019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

From Product-Centered to Servitized Industry 从产品为中心到服务化产业

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-10-06 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.823

Z. Meskic, N. Jevremović

引用次数: 2

"Is That Still Going On?" “这还在继续吗?”

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-10-06 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.824

Julie Daw

引用次数: 0

Double Security: Toward a Liberty-Based Approach to Constitutional Structure 双重安全：走向基于自由的宪法结构

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-09-24 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.804

M. Mccune

引用次数: 0

The Lanham Act's Immoral or Scandalous Provision: Down, But Not Out 《兰厄姆法案》的不道德或丑闻条款：失败，但不出局

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-09-24 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.807

M. Stephenson

引用次数: 0

The Hague Judgments Convention in the United States: A "Game Changer" or a New Path to the Old Game? 美国海牙判决公约：“游戏规则改变者”还是通往旧游戏的新道路？

IF 0.2 4区社会学

University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2021-09-24 DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2021.803

Ronald A. Brand

引用次数: 1