ORCID Profile
0000-0002-0226-0936
Current Organisation
University of Queensland
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
International Law (excl. International Trade Law) | Law
Emerging Defence Technologies | Justice and the Law not elsewhere classified |
Publisher: Brill
Date: 17-08-2016
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 04-2007
DOI: 10.1093/EJIL/CHM019
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Date: 22-04-2011
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 24-10-2017
Abstract: Under international law, military medical personnel and facilities must be respected and protected in the event of an armed conflict. This special status only applies to personnel and facilities exclusively engaged in certain enumerated medical duties, especially the treatment of the wounded and sick, and the prevention of disease. Military medical personnel have, however, been called upon to engage in the biomedical enhancement of warfighters, as exemplified by the supply of central nervous system stimulants as a fatigue countermeasure. This article argues that international law of armed conflict does not recognise human enhancement as a medical duty, and that engaging in enhancement that is harmful to the enemy results in the loss of special protection normally enjoyed by military medical personnel and units.
Publisher: Law and the Future of War Research Group, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland
Date: 05-2023
DOI: 10.14264/2BBFD31
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Date: 04-08-2016
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 09-11-2020
Abstract: [Law and the Future of War Research Paper No 4] This paper considers one of most fundamental of rules of the law of armed conflict on the means and methods of warfare, which has been captured in Article 35(2) of Additional Protocol I in the following language: ‘It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.’ The exclusive focus of this unnecessary suffering rule on the wellbeing of combatants arguably makes it exceptional in the fabric of the law of armed conflict. And the fierce agreement about the foundational nature of this rule is only matched by the disagreement as to its precise meaning and efficacy. This paper considers the origins of the rule, and how key aspects of the rule are interpreted. It then deals with one of the more contentious issues – namely whether the rule is only concerned with the inherent properties of particular weapons or whether it also deals with the use of weapons. The paper suggest, with particular reference to human enhancement, that a better reading of the rule would indeed capture the uses of weapons. The use of a weapon with a knowledge that it would cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering in the circumstances ought to be regarded as prohibited by the rule.
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 11-2001
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2022
Publisher: Hart Publishing
Date: 2012
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Date: 15-09-2017
Abstract: Rain Liivoja explores why, and to what extent, armed forces personnel who commit offences abroad are prosecuted under their own country& apos s laws. After clarifying several conceptual uncertainties in the doctrine of jurisdiction and immunities, he applies the doctrine to the extraterritorial deployment of service personnel. Comparing the law and practice of different states, the author shows the sheer breadth of criminal jurisdiction that countries claim over their service personnel. He argues that such claims disclose a discrete category of jurisdiction, with its own scope and rationale, which can be justified as a matter of international law. By distinguishing service jurisdiction as a distinct category, the analysis explains some of the peculiarities of military criminal law and also provides a basis for extending national criminal law to private military contractors serving the state. This book is essential for scholars and practitioners in international and criminal law, especially in military contexts.
Publisher: Oxford University PressOxford
Date: 31-10-2013
DOI: 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199671144.003.0012
Abstract: This chapter analyses the attempts of three Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — to prosecute offences against international law committed in their territories by the Soviet authorities during and after World War II. It highlights the storytelling or history-writing function of trials of international crimes. The situation of the Baltic states also illustrates what happens if the historical record produced by such trials is in conflict with existing historical paradigms.
Publisher: Law and the Future of War Research Group, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland
Date: 23-03-2023
DOI: 10.14264/6670709
Publisher: Brill
Date: 09-12-2020
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 16-08-2007
DOI: 10.1093/HRLR/NGM026
Publisher: Law and the Future of War Research Group, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland
Date: 05-2023
DOI: 10.14264/1C0275B
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 12-2015
DOI: 10.1017/S1816383116000424
Abstract: Advances in military technology have led many, including the developers of such technology, to propose new regulation. International lawyers have extensively examined the adequacy of the existing law to address emerging technology, but they have devoted relatively little attention in these analyses to the prior development of the law as a result of, or despite, technological change. This essay highlights two challenges that those wishing to undertake such an exercise might encounter. The first of these is the general paucity of serious engagement with the history of international law applicable in armed conflicts and the perpetuation of a particular “origin myth” of international humanitarian law. The second challenge has to do with the controversies about the impact of technology on society in general, and the impact of military technology on warfare in particular. Nevertheless, the essay concludes by pointing towards some of the insight that might be gained from a more history-conscious analysis of the relationship between technology and law in the military context.
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2020
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 10-01-2014
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 07-2008
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589308000389
Abstract: Article 103 of the United Nations (UN) Charter stipulates that the obligations of UN Member States under the Charter prevail, in the event of a conflict, over their obligations under any other international agreement. While this important provision is often mentioned, its precise meaning remains something of a mystery. The present article tries to shed some light on the scope of this ‘supremacy clause’ by discussing, first, its operation with respect to treaties, and then by looking at its relevance to various other contractual arrangements and to customary international law.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 11-2012
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156512000568
Abstract: Since the late 1980s, governments have increasingly relied on the services of private military and security companies (PMSCs) in attaining their defence and foreign-policy objectives. States with advanced armed forces (notably the US and UK but also many others) have seen the outsourcing of various support functions, such as logistics or communications, as a way of cutting costs. Conversely, states with weak militaries (for ex le, Croatia at the time of the break-up of Yugoslavia and Angola during the civil war) have used PMSCs to boost their actual war-fighting capabilities. More recently, international organizations and non-governmental organizations have also turned to PMSCs, largely to ensure the safety of their humanitarian operations in zones of conflict.
Publisher: 209
Date: 2017
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 18-06-2008
DOI: 10.1093/JCSL/KRN010
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 13-02-2018
DOI: 10.1136/MEDETHICS-2017-104584
Abstract: In the context of military medical care, Eisenstein and colleagues have introduced the notion ‘left of bang intervention in trauma’, which refers to interventions administered before trauma to reduce morbidity and mortality after injury. This paper responds to Eisenstein and colleagues’ ethical analysis of such interventions, highlighting the difficulty in distinguishing between purely prophylactic and enhancing interventions. This response also addresses legal issues that arise from left of bang interventions under human rights law and the law of armed conflict, in particular the questions as to whether the consent of service members would need to be obtained and whether the adversary would as a consequence be authorised to resort to more injurious weapons.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 20-12-2018
DOI: 10.1017/S1816383118000437
Abstract: Traumatic memories of war can result in mental disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD is characterized by intrusive trauma memories and severe stress responses with devastating personal and societal consequences. Current treatments teach patients to regulate trauma memories, but many experience a return of symptoms even after initially successful treatment. Neuroscience is discovering ways to permanently modify trauma memories and prevent the return of symptoms. Such memory modification techniques (MMTs) have great clinical potential but also important ethical, legal and social implications. In this article, the authors describe PTSD, the role of memory in PTSD, its effects on the brain, and the limitations of current treatment methods. Then, the state of the art of the neuroscience of MMTs is presented. Within this realistic scientific framework the authors will discuss the ethical, legal and social implications of MMTs for the treatment of war-induced PTSD, especially in a military population. Three major sets of issues will be focused on: safety and social justice concerns, concerns about threats to authenticity and identity, and the possible legal and moral duties to retain certain memories. Finally, the article concludes that within scientific reality, concerns are limited and do not outweigh the potential benefits of developing treatments for patients.
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 22-04-2021
DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780197546048.003.0008
Abstract: Disagreements about the humanitarian risk-benefit balance of weapons technology are not new. The history of arms control negotiations offers many ex les of weaponry that was regarded ‘inhumane’ by some, while hailed by others as a means to reduce injury or suffering in conflict. The debate about autonomous weapons systems reflects this dynamic, yet also stands out in some respects, notably largely hypothetical nature of concerns raised in regard to these systems as well as ostensible disparities in States’ approaches to conceptualizing autonomy. This chapter considers how misconceptions surrounding autonomous weapons technology impede the progress of the deliberations of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. An obvious tendency to focus on the perceived risks posed by these systems, much more so than potential operational and humanitarian advantages they offer, is likely to jeopardize the prospect of finding a meaningful resolution to the debate.
Start Date: 06-2013
End Date: 03-2018
Amount: $316,000.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity