This research explores how robots can be used to protect parties to a conflict and civilians from suicide bombings in conflict areas under the international humanitarian law. This paper examines the issue from the perspectives of robotics and international law using a real robot. In this paper, the articles of international humanitarian law are interpreted, and a framework required for robotic systems is proposed. From the perspective of the principle of distinction, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of precaution, ideas are presented to calculate the legal indicators named “certainty,” “effort,” “nexus possibility,” “necessity,” and “collateral damage.”

Shortly after September 11, 2001, the US administration, headed by former President George W. Bush, declared that it was engaged in a War on Terror (or War against Terrorism). This “war” was seen as a single worldwide international armed conflict against a non-state actor (Al-Qa’ida).

The present administration, headed by President Barack Obama, does not use this or any similar expression. According to the administration, the US is currently engaged in a non-international armed conflict with the Al-Qa’ida and its associated forces. Yet it commonly looks at terrorism within a war or armed conflict paradigm. In this sense, there are important similarities in howthe two administrations deal with terrorism.

In this article, the author discusses the interrelationship between terrorism and international humanitarian law (IHL). Since the applicability of IHL is dependent on the existence of an armed conflict situation, clarifying this concept is of first importance. After a brief look at the concept of terrorism, this paper analyzes howarmed conflicts are categorized in IHL and considers howparties to armed conflicts are conceptualized. In this vein, it is argued that it would be difficult for terrorist groups to qualify as parties to armed conflict.

Historically, the international community has taken actions against terrorism from the perspective of international criminal law (ICL). Indeed, there exist many international legal instruments designed to prevent designated “terroristic” activities and punish individual perpetrators (ICL treaties). However, the context in which terrorist acts are committed is not limited to so-called peacetime. The second half of this article is devoted to the question of the interplay between these ICL treaties and IHL. An analytical focus is placed on regime setting clauses or exclusionary clauses in the treaties.

Armed conflicts between government forces and other armed groups may become humanitarian disasters. As can be seen in the Syrian Arabic Republic, such conflicts are accompanied by large-scale displacement. How do the norms of the refugee regime deal with people who have escaped armed conflicts? This article offers some insights for exploring them by paying attention to the change and formation of norms in the refugee regime.

The first section regards an idea of a new approach to fill the gap between the function of the existing norm in refugee regime and contemporary crises caused by armed conflicts. This idea shows that, if the existing norm is amended, individuals who have fled from armed conflicts can be protected as “refugees” in terms of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention). To protect civilians out of their states of origin, this idea proposes the approach to incorporate international humanitarian law (IHL) into the interpretative standards for “refugee” in term of the Refugee Convention.

The second section regards an alternative norm of the refugee regime, that is to say, the norm of a temporary refuge. It has been argued that this norm was formed to protect civilian victims such as non-combatants who fled to other states from violence and other forms of threats. One pillar of this argument is that the norm prohibits the repatriation of civilians who crossed a border from a state engaged in armed conflict, where infringements of the principles or rules of IHL frequently occur. It is an intriguing phenomenon that the norm is recently regaining attention at the forums of the United Nations and academia.

The third section regards a premise to interpret the language of international law on the norms into the language of international politics. This article explains the principle to restrict access of refugees to the North. This restrictive principle functions to deter the refugee flow from the South.

In the final section, this article considers the implications of two norms for refugee regime. Ostensibly, the change and formation of the norms look to extend the scope to protect so that individuals, who flee armed conflict, may be covered. However, it is important to understand how the change and formation of the norms have been promoted in the political context of the asymmetry of power between the North and the South. It is the conclusion of this article that the norms justify the refugee regime to contain people, who are afraid of the tragedy of armed conflict, in the neighboring states and in the South.

AIや自律ロボットをはじめとする新興技術（エマージングテクノロジー）の急速な発展と産業における利用が議論される一方で，自律型致死兵器システム（LAWS）の研究開発も進展している．国際的な議論としては，特定通常兵器使用禁止制限条約（CCW）の枠組みにおける規制について検討がなされ，今後のガイドとなるべき原則指針が提案されている．本稿では，自律型致死兵器システムについて，LAWSに適用される

本稿の考察は、司法および人権アフリカ裁判所（ACJHR）の設置が進捗しない要因を解き明かすことを目的としている。ACJHRは、国際刑事裁判所（ICC）によるアフリカでの司法介入に対する反発の結果、オルタナティブなメカニズムとして生み出されようとしていた。だが、多くのアフリカ諸国がACJHRの構想に賛成した一方で、設置のためのマラボ議定書を批准した国はない。本議論を紐解けば、マラボ議定書が有する現職の国家元首と政府高官の訴追免除規定によってヨーロッパ諸国からの支援を得ることができず、また、マラボ議定書成立当初はNGOなどからの批判も見受けられたが、近年は現実に即した規定でありACJHRは機能するのではないかと肯定的な評価に変わってきた。ここに、ICCに対するアフリカ諸国のスタンスに関わらずACJHR設置議論が進捗しない要因を見つけることができる。さらにこのような考察を通して、ICCに対し影響力を行使しようと試みるアフリカの姿も垣間見えてきた。本稿での考察は、アフリカをICCとの関係性において客体としてではなく主体として捉えることが重要であることを示すことにつながった。

Although the relationship between war and environmental resources was a concern for classical anthropology, the literature on anthropology of war in recent decades has rarely treated the environment as a main topic of inquiry. In recent years, however, there has been a growing interest in the relationship between military activities and the environment both in academia as well as by activists. On the one hand, defense experts now consider climate change as a security concern that contributes to regional conflicts. On the other, environmental protection has emerged as one of the key arguments in opposing wars and military facilities. In this article, I explore how this trend can be studied anthropologically.

The environment has always been a matter of concern for military strategists. Military campaigns often carry invading armies to unfamiliar terrains and unaccustomed climes, bringing them into contact with unknown disease agents. During the Cold War, however, concerns about the boomerang effects of the ever-growing destructive powers of weaponry(especially nuclear)on friendly forces and nations brought such environmental concerns to a new level. During the Vietnam War, the worldwide admonition against the use of chemical defoliants(commonly known as “Agent Orange”)gave rise to the notion of “ecocide”(or ecological-genocide), which sought to extend the protection of civilian life under international humanitarian law to nature. Such an international law framework now provides the means to file grievances for suffering caused by past and contemporary military activities based on supposed environmentally-mediated risks and harms.

Anthropologists studying international humanitarian law and human rights have typically focused on how such legal concepts are applied in practice. Drawing on the Foucaultian notion of subjectivity and governmentality, they have explored how the discourse of rights offers “idioms of distress,” while producing “victims” and bringing them together with an assemblage of advocates, scientists, lawyers and various institutions. Justice movements that draw on international sanctions against the wartime destruction of the environment also reconfigure victims’ subjectivity and reorder their relation to the environment, suffused with the remnants of a tragic past.

Landscapes and bodies scarred by past atrocities also serve as the depositories of memories, in which the traumatic past dwells like a poison that contaminates local residents unbeknownst to them. Such memory-places can be verbalized through recollections or turned into symbolic resources by local communities in the form of memorials or museums. Such sites of memories are often communally shared, just as acts of remembrance often presume and produce communities. But because such “commons of tragedy” also contaminate those communities with stigmas and risks, claims and disclaimers for such sites may reveal subtle negotiations and the aesthetics of remembrance.

In sum, the anthropology of military environment brings together concerns about the political and aesthetic implications of bringing the environment and contaminated bodies onto the center stage of international peace and justice movements. However, anthropology can also contribute by doing what it is best at: writing stories of how military-related environmental destruction leads to human suffering.