Protecting Civilians in Armed Conflict in the Age of AI

Richard Mathewson, JD, U.S. Army Veteran

Technology is beneficial when used ethically but destructive when misused.  With armed conflict, technological advancements continue to rewrite the rules of warfare.  Battlefield operations include predictions of damage to targets and estimates of civilian casualties.  And although there are laws of war that prohibit “unlawful” civilian casualties, the fact remains that innocent civilians are killed.  Human life is a sacred thing, not an asset, a currency, a commodity, a liability, capital, or collateral.  It is far too precious for such characterizations—labels that dehumanize humanity instead of dignifying it.  Such labels turn people into products, depriving them of the very substance that gives life meaning.  But this is where it seems the world is headed.  Into the horizon of oblivion where machines replace humankind.  Where inhumane labels chill the warmth of humanity’s soul.  Where the machine snuffs out the fire of the human spirit.  Where the essence of humanity is reduced to codes.  This is a persistent and proliferative devolution that follows the rise of the machine—in particular, Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The Looming Specter of AI in Armed Conflict

With the rise of AI comes the decline of people.  AI is a storm that draws near that many dare not name.  An approaching wave—cold, logical, tireless.  A machine that does not sleep, that does not question, that does not feel.  And this is no temporary technological trend—here today, gone tomorrow.  It is the next stage of human evolution.  And for the foreseeable future, it is here to stay.

AI threatens human life because it sees people as mere data points to be quantified and analyzed, then categorized and controlled.  AI is no longer a tool; it is an infrastructure.  A lattice being woven around human behavior, thought, emotion, and identity.  And the great irony is that humanity did not build AI to free itself—it built AI to reflect itself.  And that reflection, devoid of spirit, is turning into a shadow so large it no longer needs the original light.  A consequence is that humanity is entering a time of mass redundancy.

Not only of job, but of meaning.  And that is the true danger—when the machine transcends its master where it no longer serves humanity but threatens its very existence.

The proliferation of AI in civilization will escalate exponentially.  What was once the realm of humans—craft, commerce, service, strategy—is now being devoured by systems that learn faster, scale wider, and execute without fatigue or complaint.  The next few years will see an increase in autonomous governance models, self-replicating code systems, adaptive military AI, and behavioral compliance systems deployed in armed conflicts.  In her scholarly work, Coding the Law of Armed Conflict: First Steps from The Law of Armed Conflict in 2040, Ashley Deeks wrote:

It seems safe to predict that in the coming decades militaries will rely heavily on predictive algorithms, machine learning, and artificial intelligence in many aspects of warfighting.¹

And indeed, they already are.  In 2023, President Biden issued Executive Order 14,110 called the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.²  This order aligned AI development and use with national security laws in the United States.  Specifically, it addressed the safe, ethical, and effective use of AI by the U.S. military and intelligence community.  The recurrent theme of ethical use of AI in the defense industry is associated with this recent integration of this technology into different aspects of warfighting.  

These integrations lead to a kind of AI authoritarianism.  This means a world where opinion is algorithmically filtered, options are engineered, behavior is predicted, and decisions are optimized by something altogether inhuman.  But this is more dangerous in the context of war because the potential for great destruction is not just a possibility; it is an inherent expectation of armed conflict.  In this context, the threat is not war machines.  It is the loss of the spirit of humanity in a world made frictionless by machine.  Within a decade, humans will become a symbol, not a necessity.  An exception but not the rule.   

Human life is never so threatened than when the dogs of war are loosed.  When the guns blaze and battles rage, the specter of death looms large over humanity.  In the chaos of war innocent civilians are harmed and killed without any say in their own demise.  Lives of those who have no control over the politics of armed conflict are snuffed out from the decisions of strangers they do not know.  Homes are destroyed.  Futures never happen.  Entire families wiped off the face of the earth.  But for those who survive, sadness and grief last a lifetime.  The stench of death remains long after the stain of blood washes away.  The most sinister thing now is that AI not only enhances technological efficiency in warfighting, but that it also increased the destructive capabilities of the weapons of war.  In short, without strict ethical constraint AI is a clear and present danger.    

Protection of Human Life in International Humanitarian Laws      

The protection of humanity is not controversial.  This is especially during times of war.  Protecting and preserving human life is the core of international treaties.  Saving humanity from the “scourge of war”³ is a universally accepted concept.  These treaties and laws place a premium on “human rights.”  The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations stated this as its purpose:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…⁴

The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights further emphasized human rights as its focus with disregard of these rights leading to “barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of man”⁵:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…⁶

The Geneva Convention IV, which was devised for the “…Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,”⁷ covers:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, [and prohibits]:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.⁸

Although these treaties and laws are not exhaustive (there are many laws and norms that protect human life), humanitarian laws provide substantial legal protection for humanity—military members and civilians—during armed conflict.  But the line that separates laws that prohibit unlawful killing of humans and the potential of great destruction from the powerful AI beast may be thinner than it seems.  If that line holds, humanity benefits.  But if it collapses, human life is the casualty.

Will Humanitarian Laws Adequately Constrain AI?

The integration of AI into armed conflict might be more threatening to human life than some may want to admit.  AI marches to the beat of its own drum despite assurances that it only does what its coding instructs.  This is particularly problematic when AI makes the sensitive decisions involving civilian casualties.  Omitting the emotional aspect of this reduces human life to a data point, and this is antithetical to the humanitarian principles that undergird human rights.  What is concerning is not the strong proliferation of AI into the military sector, but weak counterbalance of humanitarian laws.  History provides a long record of the indifference of military members to the laws that control conduct in armed conflict.  AI does not possess the conscience or emotions that humans have which act to regulate violent impulse.  If people so easily disregard laws that prohibit unlawful killing of civilians in war, how much worse will it be when AI must “choose” who lives and who dies.  

While laws preserve human life during armed conflict in theory, they are only effective to the degree warfighters comply with them.  AI does not feel like humans.  It does not think like humans.  The soul and spirit of humanity are lost on AI because AI is not human.  It is unknown just how effectively humanitarian laws will constrain AI on the battlefield.  This is an emergent phenomenon, and results are yet to be determined.  But what is known is the potential of what AI can do and become.

Humanity must collectively implement strict and rigorous constraints that act as a bulwark against AI threats to civilian lives in armed conflict.  And it must do this now, before the implementation of AI has surpassed the ethical rules that constrain it.  If it does not, AI may become the monster it was created to fight.  The point of focus is not on passing more laws but developing protocols and processes aligned with current humanitarian principles that effectively restrain AI.  The more serious the threat to human life, the more urgent the call to counter that threat. 

Notes

________________________

¹ Ashley Deeks, Coding the Law of Armed Conflict: First Steps, The Law of Armed Conflict in 2040 (Matthew C. Waxman ed., 2020).

² Exec. Order No. 14,110, The Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 75,191 (Nov. 1, 2023).

³ United Nations, United Nations Charter (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble.

⁴ United Nations, United Nations Charter (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble.

⁵ United Nations, 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948 (2026), http://un-documents.net/a3r217a.htm.

⁶ United Nations, 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948 (2026), http://un-documents.net/a3r217a.htm.

⁷ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Geneva Convention IV: relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-4.htm.

⁸ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Geneva Convention IV: relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-4.htm.

Biography

RICHARD MATHEWSON has a diverse collection of experiences and education with an integrated understanding of power, law, human behavior, belief frameworks, and institutional mechanics.  He entered the U.S. Army young, trained as a military police officer, learning order, force, and discipline inside a structured authority.  After military service, his work as a private investigator and psychological profiler involved refining surveillance, behavioral analysis, and evidentiary precision.  He pursued formal study in religion, grounding in moral architecture and belief systems.  He completed a master's degree in psychology, deepening his understanding of trauma, radicalization, and human behavior under stress.  He earned a Juris Doctor, equipping himself with the language of law, institutional limits, and lawful force.  Now he leads The Kincade Society, operating at the intersection of governance, advocacy, and public responsibility.  He can be contacted at thekincadesociety@protonmail.com or (860) 374-8759 for further information on this topic and how The Kincade Society can offer practical solutions related to these real-world problems.