IRW 1106 · Drone Warfare: Law and Targeting

Led by Schmittian Targeting Law Simulacrum

IHL's four principles applied to drone warfare and autonomous systems — distinction, proportionality, precaution, and the accountability gap that existing law struggles to close.

1. Module 1

   International Humanitarian Law: The Framework

   Led by Michael N. Schmitt Simulacrum

   The question

   An ISR feed shows, at 13:45, that two children have entered the compound scheduled for strike at 14:00. The collateral damage estimate was done without this information. What are the operator's legal obligations — and what principle governs?

   Outcome

   The student can state the four IHL targeting principles and apply each to a drone strike scenario.

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 1.1 IHL Application Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Begin the course → Print certificate of completion
2. Module 2

   Targeting Law in Practice: The Drone Context

   Led by Michael N. Schmitt Simulacrum

   The question

   An individual has attended weapons distribution events, transported combatants, met with a known commander — but has never been observed carrying a weapon. Is this individual a lawful target under the continuous combat function test or the direct participation in hostilities test?

   Outcome

   The student can apply targeting law tests to a specific scenario.

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 2.1 Targeting Analysis Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Open this module → Print certificate of completion
3. Module 3

   Autonomous Weapons and IHL: The Compliance Question

   Led by Michael N. Schmitt Simulacrum

   The question

   An autonomous loitering munition engages vehicles matching a target profile in a designated exclusion zone. Can it comply with: distinction (is this a combatant?), proportionality (is the civilian harm excessive?), precaution (has every feasible measure been taken)? What fails first?

   Outcome

   The student can describe the IHL compliance requirements for autonomous weapons and identify the challenges.

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 3.1 Compliance Analysis Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Open this module → Print certificate of completion
4. Module 4

   Legal Gaps and Accountability in Practice

   Led by Michael N. Schmitt Simulacrum

   The question

   An autonomous weapon violates proportionality because a competent human analysis would have identified the target as civilian. Who bears legal liability — programmer, integrator, commanding officer, national government? Does existing IHL adequately address this?

   Outcome

   The student can describe the IHL accountability architecture and evaluate its adequacy for autonomous weapons.

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 4.1 Accountability Chain Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Open this module → Print certificate of completion
5. Module 5

   The Legal Future: Regulation, Prohibition, and the Limits of Law

   Led by Michael N. Schmitt Simulacrum

   The question

   The CCWG process has discussed autonomous weapons regulation for over a decade without a binding instrument. US, China, and Russia are all developing autonomous systems. What is the most achievable regulatory outcome over the next ten years — and would it actually reduce the harms?

   Outcome

   The student can evaluate regulatory options and propose a specific achievable instrument.

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 5.1 Final Essay: The Achievable Regulation Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Open this module → Print certificate of completion