September 12, 2025

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Combating War Crimes: Ethical and Legal Challenges

Puntos clave

AI enhances evidence collection and perpetrator identification in war crimes, but raises ethical concerns.
Machine learning improves geospatial intelligence by documenting 85% more incidents than traditional methods.
Racial bias in AI poses risks, with 31% error rates noted in facial recognition for darker-skinned individuals.
Proposed regulatory frameworks include International AI Evidence Standards to avoid privacy violations.

Resumen

The increasing digitization of armed conflicts has positioned artificial intelligence (AI) as a transformative tool in war crime investigations, offering unprecedented capabilities in evidence collection, perpetrator identification, and atrocity prevention. This study examines AI's dual role as both an evidentiary asset and a source of ethical-legal challenges within international criminal justice systems. Through doctrinal analysis and empirical case studies (Syria, Myanmar, Ethiopia), we demonstrate how machine learning enhances geospatial intelligence (85% more incidents documented than traditional methods) and biometric recognition, while also revealing systemic risks: racial bias in facial recognition (31% error rates for darker-skinned individuals) and evidentiary opacity incompatible with ICC standards (Article 69(4), Rome Statute). The research identifies three critical gaps: (1) normative ambiguities in AI-generated evidence admissibility (Prosecutor v. Bemba, 2016), (2) accountability vacuums for algorithmic errors, and (3) privacyviolative data practices (34,000 civilians exposed in Sudan, 2023). We propose a four-pillar regulatory framework: (1) International AI Evidence Standards mandating blockchain-based provenance tracking, (2) Algorithmic Transparency Protocols requiring open-source audits under EU AI Act Article 29, (3) War Crime AI Literacy Programs for legal professionals (currently only 32% of ICC prosecutors understand ML basics), and (4) Rome Statute Reforms establishing an AI Evidence Review Chamber. Cross-referencing 24 jurisdictions, the study demonstrates that human rights-compliant AI deployment requires "explainability by design" (Wachter, 2017) and layered oversight—particularly for high-risk applications like predictive policing (44% false positives in Palestine). The findings advocate for a balanced paradigm where AI augments, but never replaces, human legal judgment in upholding in dubio pro reo principles.

Me gusta

Guardar

Cite This Study

Janna ASHIROVNA (Thu,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d4764731b076d99fa6e1eb https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55843/isc2024conf177a

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

Me gusta

Guardar