Aug 2026· International Criminal Law Review· 0 citations
TL;DR
This article proposes that the ‘should have known’ standard under Article 28(a) be interpreted to encompass risk awareness of AI system limitations, and that effective control extend to the organisational and technological conditions governing AI deployment.
Abstract
The expanding role of artificial intelligence in military decision-making poses interpretive challenges for command responsibility under Article 28 of the Rome Statute. Existing scholarship has largely addressed this problem through international humanitarian law and the so-called ‘accountability gap’, leaving its implications for international criminal responsibility underexplored. This article argues that artificial intelligence does not render command responsibility obsolete but requires a more context-sensitive application of its two central elements: knowledge and effective control. It proposes that the ‘should have known’ standard under Article 28(a) be interpreted to encompass risk awareness of AI system limitations, and that effective control extend to the organisational and technological conditions governing AI deployment. These reinterpretations are integrated within a layered model of responsibility operating across operational, command, and institutional levels. The distinction between Article 28(a) and 28(b) also acquires particular significance in AI-enabled contexts, where civilian decision-makers play a growing role in AI procurement.
The concept of the “meeting of the algorithms” is introduced as a modern alternative to the conventional “meeting of the minds,” emphasising how AI-driven contracts differ from human-based ones.
The analysis shows that the transition from traditional digital administration to agentic organizations may prove operational efficiency, support data-driven decision-making and enable more adaptive public ser-vices, and highlights the importance of institutional readiness, human-on-the-loop supervision, transparent go...
Roxana Sârbu, Florin Dobre, Ion Pârgaru et al.· New Trends in Sustainable Bu...· 0 citations
The proliferation of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems autonomous, goal-directed agents capable of acting with minimal human oversight, has exposed fundamental inadequacies in existing civil liability frameworks. Traditional tort, product liability, and custodian regimes struggle to accommodate systems whose...
Emma Lunardi· 2026 IEEE 34th International...· 0 citations
The study demonstrates how MHC can be translated from an ethical principle into governance practice and shows that meaningful control depends not only on human involvement in decisions, but also on defined purposes and boundaries, operational procedures for review and correction, legal safeguards, and institutional cap...
Tak-Ming Yu, Xia Zheng, Hoi-Kuen Ng· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
The feasibility of the risk-based “Brussels Effect” within the EU framework is examined, and Türkiye’s systemic position, as a long-standing member of the Council of Europe and the 38-member OECD, will be evaluated in terms of legal regulations and at the theoretical level.
Karaman Zerrin Toprak· Advances in Social Sciences...· 0 citations
Faced with the prospect of an anthropocentric ceiling to efforts to understand frontier AI systems, a new paradigm for lawmakers is proposed, Sentinel Governance, grounded in governance-oriented innovation and experimentation to supplement human oversight of AI.
Matt Bartlett· The Cambridge Law Journal· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.