Podcasts about armed conflict pilac

In this episode, Dr Lauren Sanders speaks with Dustin Lewis, of Harvard Law School's Project on International Law and Armed Conflict about war algorithms and his recent project on pathways for using AI, and how to ensure greater respect for international law when states use these algorithmic capabilities. Dustin is the Research Director  at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC). With a focus on public international law sources and methods, Dustin leads research into several wide-ranging contemporary challenges related to securing peace, protecting civilians, regulating hostilities, safeguarding the environment, and ending armed conflicts.Additional Resources:PILAC - Three Pathways to Secure Greater Respect for International Law Concerning War Algorithms SIPRI - Emerging Military and Security Technologies Project ASSER Institute - Designing International Law and Ethics into Military Artificial Intelligence (DILEMA)  Geneva Institute - Lethal Autonomous Weapons and War Crimes ProjectAutoNorms - Weaponised AI, Norms and OrderICRC Background Papers on LAWS: ICRC Position on Autonomous Weapons Suchman - Human-Machine Reconfigurations (CUP, 2012)

The promotion of more just and peaceful societies is a fundamental goal of the United Nations (UN). In response to the spike in violent conflict worldwide and unparalleled levels of forced displacement, the UN broke new ground in 2016 with two “peacebuilding resolutions,” which set forth a new UN approach to “sustaining peace” that addresses “all stages of conflict” and “all its dimensions.” During this session, we explored what law, policy, and ethics can teach us about “sustaining peace” and how the UN can be assisted in forging a more coherent vision of this new paradigm. This session of the fourth annual RPP Colloquium Series features Benjamin B. Ferencz, JD ’43 HLS, recipient of the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom 2014, and former United States prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal at Nüremberg; respondent Gabriella Blum, LLM ’01, SJD ’03, Rita E. Hauser Professor of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, faculty director of the Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC), and member of the Program on Negotiation executive board at Harvard Law School; respondent J. Bryan Hehir, Parker Gilbert Montgomery Professor of the Practice of Religion and Public Life at Harvard Kennedy School, secretary for social services of the Archdiocese of Boston; and moderator Federica D’Alessandra, LLM, 2013-16 Fellow and 2010-12 Associate at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, 2016-17 Visiting Scholar/Researcher at HLS, 2017-18 Fellow at HDS, and 2016-18 RPP adviser. Learn more about Harvard Divinity School and its mission to illuminate, engage, and serve at http://hds.harvard.edu/.

The consequences of counterterrorism laws and policies on humanitarian action have been widely debated and discussed. Indeed, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have become increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impact of such measures on the delivery of principled humanitarian assistance. Yet, humanitarian organizations continue to experience the effect of counterterrorism measures on their work, often causing a "chilling effect" on humanitarian assistance.On 12 May, Jessica S. Burniske and Naz K. Modirzadeh presented their recently published pilot empirical study on the impact of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action as part of the Counterterrorism and Humanitarian Engagement (CHE) Project at the Harvard Law School (HLS) Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC). The event explored the key findings of this survey-based study, providing a policy analysis of the results, and followed by an opportunity for questions from the audience.Read more at https://phap.org/12may2017

The consequences of counterterrorism laws and policies on humanitarian action have been widely debated and discussed. Indeed, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have become increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impact of such measures on the delivery of principled humanitarian assistance. Yet, humanitarian organizations continue to experience the effect of counterterrorism measures on their work, often causing a "chilling effect" on humanitarian assistance.On 12 May, Jessica S. Burniske and Naz K. Modirzadeh presented their recently published pilot empirical study on the impact of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action as part of the Counterterrorism and Humanitarian Engagement (CHE) Project at the Harvard Law School (HLS) Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC). The event explored the key findings of this survey-based study, providing a policy analysis of the results, and followed by an opportunity for questions from the audience.Read more at https://phap.org/12may2017

With Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC)Thirteen of the sanctions regimes established by the U.N. Security Council could implicate key elements of principled humanitarian action. Those sanctions might affect humanitarian programming in numerous contexts, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Some see “humanitarian exemptions” as a way to resolve possible conflicts between sanctions and principled humanitarian action. But what are “humanitarian exemptions”? Who and what do and should they cover? And what is the debate surrounding them?At this expert online briefing, Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) synthesized recent research in order to: - Summarize the legal status, content, and nature of relevant U.N. sanctions regimes; - Define and analyze the two general categories of “humanitarian exemptions” (those for designated individuals and for the humanitarian sector); - Highlight the stakes and interests in the debate on whether such exemptions may be desirable and feasible or may be inadvisable and impracticable; - Explain some of the few existing and limited exemptions at the international and domestic levels; and - Discuss the perceived benefits and costs of suggested “humanitarian exemptions.”Read more at https://phap.org/19jul2016

With Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC)Thirteen of the sanctions regimes established by the U.N. Security Council could implicate key elements of principled humanitarian action. Those sanctions might affect humanitarian programming in numerous contexts, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Some see “humanitarian exemptions” as a way to resolve possible conflicts between sanctions and principled humanitarian action. But what are “humanitarian exemptions”? Who and what do and should they cover? And what is the debate surrounding them?At this expert online briefing, Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) synthesized recent research in order to: - Summarize the legal status, content, and nature of relevant U.N. sanctions regimes; - Define and analyze the two general categories of “humanitarian exemptions” (those for designated individuals and for the humanitarian sector); - Highlight the stakes and interests in the debate on whether such exemptions may be desirable and feasible or may be inadvisable and impracticable; - Explain some of the few existing and limited exemptions at the international and domestic levels; and - Discuss the perceived benefits and costs of suggested “humanitarian exemptions.”Read more at https://phap.org/19jul2016

On 8 January 2015, PHAP hosted a special online consultation event on the principle of neutrality in humanitarian action as part of the World Humanitarian Summit consultations. Over 200 participants joined us for a high level discussion with constant interaction from the audience, which contributed with important questions and comments.The principle of neutrality, included for example in the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and in UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182, is concerned with not taking sides in hostilities and not engaging at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious, or ideological nature. Such neutral action is generally considered as a crucial means for humanitarian organizations to be able to pursue their humanitarian work in an impartial manner – on the basis of need.The event was introduced with a special briefing by Dustin Lewis, Senior Researcher at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC), on the principle of neutrality and its development as a principle for humanitarian action. It was then followed by a panel discussion facilitated by Angharad Laing, Executive Director of PHAP, which focused on current debates in the larger humanitarian community related to the principle of neutrality and their implications, with Carsten Völz, Humanitarian Director of Oxfam International; Ingrid Macdonald, Director, Geneva and Humanitarian Policy at Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC); Jérémie Labbé, Head of Project Principles Guiding Humanitarian Action at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); and Kamel Mohanna, founder of the Lebanese NGO Amel.Read more at https://phap.org/WHS-8Jan2015

On 8 January 2015, PHAP hosted a special online consultation event on the principle of neutrality in humanitarian action as part of the World Humanitarian Summit consultations. Over 200 participants joined us for a high level discussion with constant interaction from the audience, which contributed with important questions and comments.The principle of neutrality, included for example in the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and in UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182, is concerned with not taking sides in hostilities and not engaging at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious, or ideological nature. Such neutral action is generally considered as a crucial means for humanitarian organizations to be able to pursue their humanitarian work in an impartial manner – on the basis of need.The event was introduced with a special briefing by Dustin Lewis, Senior Researcher at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC), on the principle of neutrality and its development as a principle for humanitarian action. It was then followed by a panel discussion facilitated by Angharad Laing, Executive Director of PHAP, which focused on current debates in the larger humanitarian community related to the principle of neutrality and their implications, with Carsten Völz, Humanitarian Director of Oxfam International; Ingrid Macdonald, Director, Geneva and Humanitarian Policy at Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC); Jérémie Labbé, Head of Project Principles Guiding Humanitarian Action at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); and Kamel Mohanna, founder of the Lebanese NGO Amel.Read more at https://phap.org/WHS-8Jan2015

Speakers: Naz Modirzadeh, Founding Director of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) & Dustin Lewis, Senior Researcher, PILACIn December 2014, President Obama said that the United States “combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.” Yet over a year later hostilities continue. What are the stakes for humanitarian organizations in the ongoing application—or not—of international humanitarian law (IHL) in Afghanistan and in other contemporary armed conflicts? Does international law provide sufficient guidance for humanitarians and other battlefield actors to discern when today’s armed conflicts end? At this PHAP online IHL expert briefing, Naz Modirzadeh and Dustin Lewis, of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC), will discuss initial PILAC research on the “end” of armed conflict under IHL. Among the issues they will explore are: What are the IHL criteria pertaining to the end of armed conflict? Who benefits, and who is disadvantaged, from a presumption of the continued application of IHL—both its more permissive and its more restrictive elements? What is at stake for humanitarian actors, for the parties to the conflict, and for affected civilian populations?Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-23Feb2016

Speakers: Naz Modirzadeh, Founding Director of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) & Dustin Lewis, Senior Researcher, PILACIn December 2014, President Obama said that the United States “combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.” Yet over a year later hostilities continue. What are the stakes for humanitarian organizations in the ongoing application—or not—of international humanitarian law (IHL) in Afghanistan and in other contemporary armed conflicts? Does international law provide sufficient guidance for humanitarians and other battlefield actors to discern when today’s armed conflicts end? At this PHAP online IHL expert briefing, Naz Modirzadeh and Dustin Lewis, of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC), will discuss initial PILAC research on the “end” of armed conflict under IHL. Among the issues they will explore are: What are the IHL criteria pertaining to the end of armed conflict? Who benefits, and who is disadvantaged, from a presumption of the continued application of IHL—both its more permissive and its more restrictive elements? What is at stake for humanitarian actors, for the parties to the conflict, and for affected civilian populations?Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-23Feb2016