No abstract

Autonomous weapons are weapons that, once activated, can without further human intervention select and engage targets. This raises the possibility that computers will determine whether people will live or die. The possible use of autonomous weapons against humans in armed conflict clearly has potential right to life implications. This contribution argues that the right to dignity angle must also be brought into play. The first concern raised by autonomous weapons is 'can they do it?': Can autonomus targeting conform with the requirements of international humanitarian law, in particular the rules of distinction and proportionality? If machines cannot do proper targeting, such use of force will be 'arbitrary' and thus violate the right to life. Moreover, the right to life requires accountability, but it is not clear who is to be held responsible when robots get it wrong. Secondly: 'Should they do it?' Should robots have the power of life and death over humans? This may violate the rights to life as well as the right to dignity. The question whether there is 'meaningful human control' over the release of force is emerging as a helpful tool to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable autonomous targeting, and I argue that it also makes sense from a human rights perspective. The question that will haunt the debate in the future is: What if technology develops to the point where it is clear that fully autonomous weapons surpass human targeting, and can potentially save many lives? Would human rights considerations in such a case not militate for the use of autonomous weapons, instead of against it? I argue that the rights to life and dignity demand that even under such circumstances, full autonomy in force delivery should not be allowed. The article emphasises the importance placed on the concept of a 'dignified life' in the African human rights system.

No abstract

Journalists play a central role in fostering a society based on the open discussion of facts and the pursuit of the truth, as opposed to one based on rumor, prejudice, and the naked exercise of power. As a result, journalists are often literally in the line of fire, and deserve special protection. This article considers the characteristics of deadly attacks on journalists over the last two decades, and examines how the applicable legal and policy frameworks can be used better or improved to provide a higher level of protection. Impunity, often a by-product of the politicized nature of journalistic activities, is seen as the major cause of continuous attacks on journalists. The conclusion is drawn that one of the key elements of a strategy to better protect journalists is to "elevate" the issue on a number of fronts: to move prevention and accountability from the local to the central level within domestic jurisdictions, while simultaneously heightening the level of international engagement with this issue.

There are three regional systems for the protection of human rights, namely: the African, the Inter-American and the European systems. This contribution provides a comparative overview of their salient features and focuses on key procedural and institutional aspects of these systems.