In a resort-to-force setting, what standard of care must a state follow when using AI to avoid international responsibility for a wrongful act? This article develops three scenarios based around a state-owned autonomous system that erroneously resorts to force (the Flawed AI System, the Poisoned AI System, and the Competitive AI System). It reveals that although we know what the substantive jus ad bellum and international humanitarian law rules are, international law says very little about the standards of care to which a state must adhere to meet its substantive obligations under those bodies of law. The article argues that the baseline standard of care under the jus ad bellum today requires a state to act in good faith and in an objectively reasonable way, and it describes measures states should consider taking to meet that standard when deploying AI or autonomy in their resort-to-force systems. It concludes by explaining how clarifying this standard of care will benefit states by reducing the chance of unintended conflicts.

In Western democracies the decision to go to war is made in ways that ensure decision-makers can be held accountable. In particular, bureaucracies rely on the production of a range of documents such as records of meetings to ensure accountability. Inserting AI into the decision-making process means finding ways to make sure that AI can also be held accountable for decisions to resort to force. But problems of accountability arise in this context because AI does not produce the type of documents associated with bureaucratic accountability: it is this gap in documentary capacity which is at the core of the troubling search for accountable AI in the context of the decision to go to war. This paper argues that the search for accountable AI is essentially an attempt to solve problems of epistemic uncertainty via documentation. The paper argues that accountability can be achieved in other ways. It adopts the example of new forms of evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) to show that epistemic uncertainty can be resolved and accountability apportioned without absolute epistemic certainty and without documentation in the sense commonly associated with accountability in a bureaucratic context.

In this article, we maintain that the anticipated integration of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems into state-level decision making over whether and when to wage war will be accompanied by a hitherto neglected risk. Namely, the incorporation of such systems will engender subtle but significant changes to the state’s deliberative and organisational structures, its culture, and its capacities – and in ways that could undermine its adherence to international norms of restraint. In offering this provocation, we argue that the gradual proliferation and embeddedness of AI-enabled decision-support systems within the state – what we call the ‘phenomenon of “Borgs in the org”’ – will lead to four significant changes that, together, threaten to diminish the state’s crucial capacity for ‘institutional learning’. Specifically, the state’s reliance on AI-enabled decision-support systems in deliberations over war initiation will invite: (i) disrupted deliberative structures and chains of command; (ii) the occlusion of crucial steps in decision-making processes; (iii) institutionalised deference to computer-generated outputs; and (iv) future plans and trajectories that are overdetermined by past policies and actions. The resulting ‘institutional atrophy’ could, in turn, weaken the state’s responsiveness to external social cues and censure, thereby making the state less likely to engage with, internalise, and adhere to evolving international norms of restraint. As a collateral effect, this weakening could contribute to the decay of these norms themselves if such institutional atrophy were to become widespread within the society of states.

L’année 2024 est marquée à la fois par la passivité de la pratique conventionnelle du Canada et l’hyperactivité de sa pratique contentieuse. L’apurement de l’arriéré des réclamations fondées sur le régime de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États (RDIE) de l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain entre le gouvernement du Canada, le gouvernement des États-Unis et le gouvernement du Mexique (ALÉNA) se poursuit.1 De nombreuses sentences sont aussi rendues dans des affaires portées par des investisseurs canadiens à l’étranger, des sociétés minières pour l’essentiel. Ces affaires permettent de tester les innovations juridiques visant à renforcer le droit de légiférer de l’État dans les traités plus récents du Canada. Une première sentence très attendue sur la question hautement controversée de la portée temporelle du régime transitoire de RDIE de l’Accord entre le Canada, les États-Unis et le Mexique (ACÉUM)2 est rendue dans l’affaire TC Energy et TransCanada c États-Unis (II)3 et se solde en faveur de l’État. La controverse sur la portée temporelle de ce régime transitoire fait l’objet d’une analyse détaillée dans la chronique cette année. Un tour d’horizon des principaux autres faits marquants de 2024 est d’abord effectué en ce qui concerne la pratique conventionnelle et la pratique contentieuse du Canada.

It is a privilege to write a preface to this Symposium on Canada before International Courts and Tribunals, which includes many stimulating and insightful contributions. In this preface, I go back to the beginning and focus on Canada’s first cases at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and before international arbitral tribunals.

This article prefaces our Special Issue on “AI and the Decision to Go to War.” We begin by introducing the prospect of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems increasingly infiltrating state-level decision making on the resort to force, clarifying that our focus is on existing technologies, and outlining the two general ways that this can conceivably occur: through automated self-defense and AI-enabled decision-support systems. We then highlight recent, on-going developments that create a backdrop of rapid change and global uncertainty against which AI-enabled systems will inform such deliberations: (i) the widespread tendency to misperceive the latest AI-enabled technologies as increasingly “human”; (ii) the changing role of “Big Tech” in the global competition over military applications of AI; (iii) a conspicuous blind spot in current discussions surrounding international regulation; and (iv) the emerging reality of an AI-nuclear weapons nexus. We suggest that each factor will affect the trajectory of AI-informed war initiation and must be addressed as scholars and policymakers determine how best to prepare for, direct, and respond to this anticipated change. Finally, turning to the pressing legal, ethical, sociotechnical, political, and geopolitical challenges that will accompany this transformation, we revisit four “complications” that have framed the broader project from which this Special Issue has emerged. Within this framework, we preview the other 13 multidisciplinary research articles that make up this collection. Together, these articles explore the risks and opportunities that will follow AI into the war-room.

Solomon Islands’ plural legal system, in which customary law operates in parallel with common law, and its practice and effects on society have drawn scholarly attention in spaces of legal studies, policy, economics, and state governance. An area that remains understudied is the dynamic nature in which landowners use Indigenous cultural heritage such as ancestral sites or genealogies as kastom evidence in courts. We explore this intersection through a critical review of the literature, Solomon Islands court judgments, and the nation’s lacking cultural heritage legislation. Two major infrastructure development projects in Solomon Islands, the Tina Hydro Project located on Guadalcanal and the Bina-Talifu Project on Malaita, are also examined to explore the nuances of state-led compulsory versus negotiated land acquisition. Fueling the perception that the customary land system is more of a hinderence than a strength to its peoples, these case studies demonstrate the fluid and unpredictable nature with which kastom evidence has been implemented in legal forums to substantiate or dispute claims. Ultimately, we argue that this largely reflects an incongruence between the British legal framework and traditional land tenure systems. Furthermore, we highlight how greater integration of archaeological expertise into legal processes of land surveying in Solomon Islands has the potential to mitigate some of these challenges.

This study aims to understand if the American public supports five policies related to the involvement of healthcare providers in immigration enforcement efforts such as documenting legal status in medical charts to actively assisting immigration enforcement. We also seek to establish whether public attitudes are stable on this issue using an experiment highlighting the implications of these policies for immigrants, communities, and the broader public. To assess public attitudes, we fielded a survey (N = 6049) from 7 March to 26 March 2025. We randomly assigned respondents to one of six treatments highlighting various implications of these policies for immigrants and communities. We found a divided public on the topic, with a substantial number of Americans willing to blur the lines between immigration policy and the provision of healthcare. Respondents were most receptive to tracking the number of undocumented patients served and least supportive of assisting in detaining patients. We found substantial differences based on party affiliation and presidential vote choice but not personal connections or residence inside or outside of border states. Our findings suggest that a majority of Americans support some level of immigration enforcement in healthcare settings while public opinion on this issue is hard to move.

Although they are critical for military units’ compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL), junior leaders are often overlooked in the development of ethical and moral decision-making when it comes to education and training. To foster the internalization of IHL principles in this vital cohort, those principles must be better melded with military ethics. Through examination of different military efforts to create ethical warriors, important points from behavioural ethics, the use of warrior ethoses, instances of competing positive values, and ideas for effective and affordable curricula, the present article suggests a path forward for accomplishing this.

Post-Dobbs v. Jackson, abortion regulation is left entirely to the states. Laws that restrict access to abortion generally allow for exceptions when determined necessary for the life or safety of the pregnant patient. Some states, e.g., Ohio, use a “subjective” legal standard when determining whether an abortion is medically necessary. Other states, e.g., Texas, rely on an “objective” legal standard, whereby the necessity of an abortion is not determined by any particular physician’s judgments, but rather by the judgment of a hypothetical “reasonable physician.” Though objective legal standards are widespread in American jurisprudence, they are a poor fit for clinical judgments about the medical necessity of abortion. On the contemporary model of clinical decision-making, medical judgment is irremediably subjective. In addition to being responsive to patient values and medical evidence, medical judgment is, and should be, informed by physician values. Because Texas abortion regulations rely on an objective standard of judgment that fails to correspond to a medically meaningful category, they fail to provide adequate guidance to physicians regarding the circumstances under which abortion is legally protected.

The wheels of decolonization and reparatory justice in Africa are slow. Each gain is fundamentally instrumental, resolute and instructive. In its judgment in John Ssempebwa v Kampala Capital City Authority, the High Court of Uganda resisted the applicants' compelling attempt to constitutionalize reparation for colonial legacies but exercised judicial activism in obliging the authorities to proactively embrace reparatory justice approaches. Names of public infrastructure especially in a capital city are symbols of a nation; they should promote positive memory and sustainable futures. The succinct ruling avoided spatial politics and the historical sensibilities that characterized colonialism such as the construct of racial superiority that negated the rights of African Ugandans. This omission undervalues the ruling at a time when multisectoral efforts such as legislating reparatory justice are required to advance Africa’s reparations agenda. Reparation and decolonization of public memory by Africans for Africans in Africa is critical amidst ongoing global efforts.