ABSTRACT
The article
analyzes the evolution and contemporary challenges of International
Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the context of 21st-century armed conflicts, marked
by transnational terrorism, non-state actors, cyberattacks, and the use of
artificial intelligence (AI). Since the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977
Additional Protocols, IHL has sought to protect civilian populations and limit
methods of warfare, but technological transformations and the emergence of
asymmetric wars have revealed regulatory gaps that hinder its effective
application. The study emphasizes that contemporary terrorism—decentralized and
globalized—constitutes one of the greatest challenges for this legal framework,
as it violates the principles of distinction and proportionality. Following the
attacks of September 11, 2001, international instruments such as UN Security
Council Resolution 1373 and the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism
were strengthened to curb the financing and expansion of extremist networks.
However, new threats such as lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) and
cyberattacks have transformed the nature of conflict, questioning the validity
of traditional humanitarian principles. Although AI can aid in detecting and
preventing threats, it also raises ethical and legal dilemmas due to the lack
of human control and the potential violation of fundamental rights. In this
context, the article proposes strengthening international cooperation,
integrating IHL with international criminal law and human rights, and creating
technological governance mechanisms that ensure algorithmic transparency,
meaningful human oversight, and the protection of civilians. In conclusion, the
future effectiveness of IHL will depend on its ability to adapt and innovate in
response to the multidimensional challenges of modern warfare, consolidating
itself as a dynamic system that combines legal regulation with humanitarian
ethics and the responsible use of technology.
RESUMEN
Este estudio examina el progreso y los
retos actuales del Derecho Internacional Humanitario (DIH) ante los conflictos
armados del siglo XXI, marcados por el terrorismo transnacional, los actores no
estatales, los ciberataques y el uso de la inteligencia artificial (IA). Desde los Convenios de Ginebra de 1949 y los Protocolos Adicionales
de 1977, el DIH ha buscado proteger a la población civil y limitar los métodos
de guerra, pero las transformaciones tecnológicas y el surgimiento de guerras
asimétricas han evidenciado vacíos normativos que dificultan su aplicación
efectiva. El estudio destaca que el terrorismo contemporáneo, descentralizado y
global, constituye uno de los mayores desafíos para este marco legal, ya que
transgrede los principios de distinción y proporcionalidad. Tras los atentados
del 11 de septiembre de 2001, se fortalecieron instrumentos internacionales
como la Resolución 1373 de la ONU y la Convención Interamericana contra el
Terrorismo, orientados a frenar el financiamiento y la expansión de redes extremistas.
Sin embargo, la aparición de nuevas amenazas, como los sistemas de armas
autónomas letales (LAWS) y los ataques cibernéticos, ha transformado la
naturaleza de los conflictos, cuestionando la vigencia de los principios
humanitarios tradicionales. La IA, aunque útil para la detección y prevención
de amenazas, también plantea dilemas éticos y jurídicos por la ausencia de
control humano y la posible vulneración de derechos fundamentales. En este
contexto, el artículo propone fortalecer la cooperación internacional, integrar
el DIH con el derecho penal internacional y los derechos humanos, y crear
mecanismos de gobernanza tecnológica que garanticen la transparencia
algorítmica, el control humano significativo y la protección de los civiles. En
conclusión, la efectividad futura del DIH dependerá de su capacidad de
adaptarse e innovar frente a los desafíos multidimensionales de la guerra
moderna, consolidándose como un sistema dinámico que combine la regulación
jurídica con la ética humanitaria y el uso responsable de la tecnología.
Keywords
“International
Humanitarian Law”, “terrorism”, “armed conflicts”, “cyberattacks”, “artificial intelligence”.
“Derecho Internacional Humanitario”,
“terrorismo”, “conflictos armados”, “ciberataques”, “inteligencia artificial”.
Introduction
The literature consistently
demonstrates that, while international humanitarian law (IHL) is widely
accepted as applicable to new challenges such as cyberwarfare, autonomous
weapons, drones, and non-state armed groups, there are significant doctrinal,
practical, and enforcement gaps that limit its effectiveness. These gaps hinder
its ability to fully address the complexity, speed, and particular risks of
21st-century conflicts, especially with regard to the protection of civilians,
technological unpredictability, and legal accountability.
The process of developing
and achieving universal acceptance of the principles and rules of international
law has been long and complicated. One of the most significant problems is
reaching consensus on the definition. However, the literature agrees that the
most widely accepted concept of international humanitarian law comes from the
Red Cross:
"To be precise, the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) understands international
humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts to mean international rules,
whether conventional or customary, specifically intended to solve humanitarian problems
arising directly from armed conflicts, whether international or not, and
limiting, for humanitarian reasons, the right of the parties to the conflict to
use the methods and means of warfare of their choice and protect persons and
property affected or likely to be affected by the conflict (Gussing-Sapina, 2007)."
The conceptualization
spread especially in the 20th century, both in the context of international
humanitarian law and in the spheres of human rights and international criminal
law. Fernández de Casadevante (2009) argues that the
consideration of the person or individual as a victim of a violation has only
taken place very recently and in specific sectors of the international legal
system.
Thus, for example,
countless conceptualizations of humanitarian law have emerged, but the vast
majority of them have the same essence. In this research, international
humanitarian law will be understood as the set of rules whose purpose, in times
of armed conflict, is, on the one hand, to protect persons who do not
participate or are unable to participate in hostilities and, on the other hand,
to limit the methods and means of waging war (International Committee of the
Red Cross, 2004).
The history of IHL begins
with a state phase if one wishes to establish a historical path for
international humanitarian law. For example, military leaders instructed their
troops to honor the lives of captured adversaries, treat them with dignity, and
avoid attacks on the enemy civilian population (Kalshoven
& Zegveld, 2012).
Kalshoven & Zegveld (2012)
highlight that the codification of IHL began with the efforts of figures such
as Henry Dunant, whose testimony of the suffering of wounded soldiers at the
Battle of Solferino in 1859 led to the creation of the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) and, subsequently, to the signing of the first Geneva
Convention in 1864. This convention laid the foundations for modern IHL by
establishing rules for the protection of the wounded and medical personnel on
the battlefield.
In the late 19th and early
20th centuries, IHL continued to develop with the adoption of the Hague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907. These conventions introduced rules for the
conduct of hostilities, including the prohibition of certain types of weapons
and tactics considered inhumane. Swinarski (1984) points out that these
conventions marked a significant advance by addressing not only the protection
of wounded combatants, but also the regulation of the methods and means of
warfare.
With the passage of time
and the emergence of more complex conflicts, especially during the First and
Second World Wars, it became clear that IHL needed to be revised and expanded
to effectively address the realities of modern warfare. This need led to the
revision of the Geneva Conventions in 1949, which extended protection to
prisoners of war, shipwrecked sailors, and, for the first time, the civilian
population, establishing a broader and more up-to-date regulatory framework.
The second half of the 20th
century saw the most significant advance in IHL with the adoption of the
Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in 1977. These instruments
extended the scope and reach of IHL, for example, by including the protection of
victims of non-international armed conflicts, an aspect that had not previously
received attention in conventional law literature.
According to Kalshoven and Zegveld (2012), the
Additional Protocols responded to the growing relevance of internal conflicts
and the involvement of non-state actors, reinforcing the need to ensure broader
humanitarian protection and establishing rules on the distinction between
combatants and civilians, as well as on the prohibition of indiscriminate
attacks.
Over the past few decades,
IHL has attempted to evolve to respond to emerging challenges, such as the use
of new weapons technologies, including drones and autonomous weapons, and the
proliferation of non-state actors.
Artificial intelligence
(AI) has also become a transformative force in international security and
contemporary military operations. In the field of counterterrorism, its
applications range from predictive surveillance and social media analysis to
the deployment of autonomous systems on the battlefield. However, its use poses
unprecedented challenges for international humanitarian law (IHL)
Likewise, the creation of
international criminal tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC),
has strengthened the application of IHL by holding individuals accountable for
serious violations, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity,
demonstrating an attempt to consolidate enforcement and sanctioning mechanisms.
However, there is currently
unprecedented non-traditional conflict. There is no doubt that today's civilian
population suffers greater consequences from armed conflict than in other
periods of history.
Indeed, while it is known
that international humanitarian law (IHL) seeks to limit the consequences of
armed conflict on people and regulate the means and procedures of combat, it is
challenged when new forms of armed violence emerge.
Therefore, this analysis
argues that IHL has been slow to adapt to new challenges of violence such as
terrorism, new weapons technologies, and non-state armed groups, which, in
hindsight, test its effectiveness and scope.
It will therefore be
important to provide a deductive and exploratory approach to the emergence of
IHL and the legal bodies issued in this regard, and to apply a critical and
synthetic analysis of the evolution of scenarios of armed violence.
New scenarios of armed
violence
As mentioned by Ibarz, Enric s/f, the international system is currently
dominated by hard-line political considerations such
as: redefinition of security, strategic interests, military campaigns, allies,
and enemies (Ibarz). Consequently, it is the states
themselves that have constructed and continue to construct international norms,
with the primary objective of protecting the interests and general objectives
of the state (Fernández de Casadevante Romaní, 2009).
Certainly, there is much
talk today about new conflicts. According to Abad (2009), most of these are
internal in nature, although this does not prevent them from having
transnational or internationalized elements. Similarly, they can be
asymmetrical, unlike in the past when wars were fought between states with
military apparatuses that had a certain degree of equality. Finally,
unconventional weapons and methods of combat
such as terrorism, which
mainly produces civilian victims (Abad, 2009).
Scholars such as José Salmón (2003) describe 21st-century international relations
as marked by growing global interdependence, where state and non-state actors
are increasingly interconnected in a complex network of political, economic,
and social exchanges (Salmón, 2003).
In this sense, according to
the same author, 21st-century wars will unfold between states and non-state
actors with sufficient economic and organizational strength. This is what other
scholars such as Galtung (1996) have called third-generation conflicts, which,
unlike first- and second-generation conflicts involving territorial or
ideological issues, involve ethnic, religious, or cultural identities, where
perceptions and emotions play a fundamental role (Galtung, 1996).
Terrorism
Terrorism is a violent and
political phenomenon that seeks to generate fear and influence through violence
or the threat of violence. Abad (2009) defines it as the use of force directed
at the civilian population in order to pressure governments or societies to
change a policy or power structure. This act of violence is aimed at creating a
state of terror that will bring about a change in existing conditions (Abad A.,
2009).
Heisbourg (2002) adds that
terrorism not only pursues material or territorial objectives, but is also
based on deep ideological beliefs that justify the use of violence to achieve
power (Heisbourg, 2002).
The motivations that drive
terrorist groups are diverse and may be related to politics, religion,
nationalism, or even revenge. According to Dómine
(2006), terrorist groups sometimes feel marginalized or powerless in the face
of larger power structures and resort to violence as a means of resistance. In
many cases, extremist ideologies serve as justification for violent acts,
whether to liberate a nation or to impose a religious vision (Dómine, 2006).
Finally, Thieux (2005) points out that terrorists often believe that
violence is a legitimate response to perceived injustice, which makes their
violence seen as a tool for change or liberation (Thieux,
2005).
Evolution of terrorism
Terrorism has its origins
in radical movements of the 19th century, when anarchist groups in Europe began
to use violence as a means of fighting state oppression.
In the 20th century,
terrorism underwent a transformation with the rise of separatist and national
liberation groups, such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO), which adopted terrorist methods in their struggles
for independence in their respective territories.
Dómine (2006) explains that these groups began to use
terrorism not only as a means of attack, but also as a way to raise awareness
of their causes among the international community. In this context, terrorist
violence was perceived, in some cases, as a legitimate response to foreign
occupation and political repression (Dómine, 2006).
Throughout history, there
have been several cases of terrorism that have stood out both for the magnitude
of their attacks and their geopolitical implications. The attack on September
11, 2001, carried out by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, is probably the
most significant and well-known event.
This attack, which resulted
in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, marked a turning point in the global
fight against terrorism. Abad (2009) emphasizes that this attack transformed
the way the world perceives terrorism, as it showed that terrorist organizations
could operate transnationally and carry out attacks with a global impact (Abad
A., 2009).
Other notable examples
include the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid, perpetrated by a radical Islamist
group, and the 2005 attacks in London.
According to Thieux (2005), these attacks not only demonstrated the
destructive capacity of terrorist groups, but also their ability to mobilize
radicalized individuals in various parts of the world (Thieux,
2005).
Similarly, these attacks
demonstrated the growing destructuring of traditional
terrorist organizations and the emergence of small, autonomous cells operating
in a decentralized manner. This change in tactics has been one of the main
characteristics of contemporary terrorism.
The evolution of terrorism
has been largely influenced by technological advances and globalization. In the
early stages of modern terrorism, terrorist groups used relatively simple
methods, such as bombs and kidnappings, to achieve their goals. Heisbourg
(2002) points out that, although these methods remained effective,
globalization allowed terrorist groups to broaden their operational horizons,
moving from local attacks to larger-scale actions with an international reach
(Heisbourg, 2002).
With the advent of the
internet and social media, terrorism has taken on a much more complex global
dimension. Dómine (2006) highlights that terrorist
groups can now recruit, finance, and coordinate attacks through digital
platforms, allowing them to escape the control of national governments (Dómine, 2006).
Similarly, the spread of
extremist ideologies online has facilitated the radicalization of individuals
around the world, who often operate independently, without being directly
connected to large terrorist organizations.
The evolution of tactics
has also led to a change in targets. According to Thieux
(2005), while terrorist groups in the past focused on specific symbolic or
political targets, today's attacks seek to generate a global psychological
impact, creating panic and destabilization. In addition, the use of techniques
such as suicide bombings and cyberattacks has allowed terrorist groups to adapt
to new technological realities, making it more difficult to predict or prevent
their actions (Thieux, 2005).
Terrorism in the 21st
Century
Terrorism in the 21st
century has taken on more sophisticated and globalized forms. The emergence of
groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS) has demonstrated the ability of
terrorists to create a virtual caliphate and attract followers from around the
world.
Abad (2009) points out that
extremist Islamist ideology has spread rapidly, using online platforms to
mobilize individuals toward violence. These groups seek not only to impose a
religious order, but also to create a global psychological impact by carrying
out attacks that affect both Western countries and regions of the Middle East
(Abad A., 2009).
The fight against terrorism
has also evolved, with an approach that includes stricter security measures and
the use of artificial intelligence technologies that allow millions of posts to
be filtered to detect extremist content, hate speech, or propaganda videos.
Platforms such as Meta or X (Twitter) apply trained algorithms to remove
messages that promote violence (OSCE, 2023).
Heisbourg (2002) mentions
that it is essential to address the social and economic conditions that fuel
terrorism, such as exclusion, poverty, and lack of education, in order to
prevent its spread (Heisbourg, 2002). This perspective has influenced the development
of international policies focused not only on repression but also on promoting
dialogue and global cooperation.
Evolution of international
humanitarian law over the last decade
International humanitarian
law (IHL) has undergone a remarkable evolution over the last ten years,
particularly due to the growth and expansion of terrorist acts worldwide. As
the threats of transnational terrorism and the use of new technologies such as
cyberattacks intensify, IHL has had to adapt to mitigate the effects of
terrorism and provide a legal framework to protect civilians, combatants, and
critical infrastructure.
In this context, various
international conventions and resolutions, promoted by organizations such as
the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of American States (OAS), have
been essential in developing regulations to counter these threats.
The rise of international
terrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001, along with the growth of
terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS), forced
international actors to review and strengthen the legal tools available to
address this threat (López J., 2015).
In this context, the UN and
other international organizations have played a key role in formulating new
resolutions and conventions that seek to mitigate the effects of terrorism in
the field of IHL. According to UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001),
member states have an obligation to implement national measures to prevent and
punish the financing of terrorism, the training of terrorist combatants, and
international cooperation to carry out transnational investigations. This
resolution marks a significant change in the way international humanitarian law
approaches the fight against terrorism.
Another aspect that has
changed the context of IHL is artificial intelligence. This has had a
significant impact on the areas of security and defense in recent years. In the
context of the fight against terrorism, AI is a tool with great potential for
preventing, detecting, and responding to terrorist threats. On the other hand,
it can present significant challenges from an ethical and legal point of view,
particularly in relation to international humanitarian law (IHL) as it applies
to armed conflicts.
New International
Conventions and Instruments relating to terrorism
One of the main instruments
implemented in the last decade in relation to terrorism and IHL is the UN
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism,
adopted in 1999, but with increasing application over the last ten years. This
convention establishes a series of measures and principles that seek to cut off
the sources of financing for terrorist organizations, which is essential to
weakening their operational capabilities. According to Bassiouni
(2014), international cooperation in the implementation of this convention has
been key to limiting the resources of terrorist groups and has enabled progress
in controlling activities such as money laundering (Bassiouni,
2014).
In addition, Additional
Protocol III to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, adopted in 2005, has evolved to
incorporate new threats arising from terrorism. Although this protocol is not
exclusively focused on terrorism, it establishes rules that protect civilians
in times of conflict and sets clear guidelines on the treatment of prisoners of
war, including non-state combatants involved in terrorist acts. According to
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), this protocol has been
essential in ensuring the protection of human rights in the midst of armed
conflicts involving acts of terrorism (International Committee of the Red
Cross, 2017).
On the other hand, the work
of the Organization of American States (OAS) in the fight against terrorism has
focused on the adoption of regional frameworks for cooperation and the
strengthening of security on the continent. An example of this is the 2002 Inter-American
Convention against Terrorism, which seeks to coordinate efforts among member
states to combat terrorism in all its forms.
This convention has been
crucial in the implementation of preventive measures and judicial cooperation
among countries in the Americas. According to Pérez (2016), the OAS has played
a prominent role in strengthening the international response to terrorism by
facilitating the exchange of information among countries in Latin America and
the Caribbean (Pérez, 2016).
The use of new technologies
and cyberattacks: Challenges for IHL
Over the last ten years,
one of the greatest challenges for international humanitarian law has been the
emergence of new forms of terrorism, such as cyberattacks. Terrorist groups
such as ISIS have used technology to carry out not only physical attacks, but
also digital ones, which have affected both critical infrastructure and the
stability of government and economic systems.
In this regard, Cyber-IHL,
which refers to the use of International Humanitarian Law in the digital
sphere, has emerged as a new area of focus. Although IHL did not traditionally
cover cyber attacks, in the last decade it has been
necessary to incorporate principles of proportionality, distinction, and
necessity, also applied to cyber operations (Miller, 2019).
The UN has worked to create
guidelines for applying IHL rules in cyberspace. In 2013, the UN Group of
Governmental Experts issued a report on the application of international law in
cyberspace, recognizing that cyberspace can be considered a modern battlefield
in which IHL rules can and should be applied. This report has been fundamental
to the evolution of international humanitarian law, as it establishes a
framework in which cyberterrorist acts, such as attacks on energy systems or
critical infrastructure, can be prosecuted and addressed on the basis of
international law (UN, 2013).
On the other hand, the
emergence of artificial intelligence in the field of defense and security has
sparked a debate about its benefits and risks. AI could be considered a
relevant ally for countries fighting terrorism, as it allows them to anticipate
threats, dismantle extremist networks, and optimize military operations.
However, it can also pose a direct challenge to the validity of international
humanitarian law, as terrorist groups use AI to create sophisticated propaganda
and spread violent ideologies on a global scale (EFE, 2025).
Additionally, IHL
establishes that parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and
civilians and avoid disproportionate collateral damage. However, lethal
autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), which can select and attack targets without
human intervention, call into question the ability to comply with these
principles (Pinho de Oliveira & Bueno Montilla, 2025).
Various organizations,
including the ICRC, warn that machines lack moral judgment and empathy, and
therefore cannot assess the humanitarian context of their actions. In 2023,
more than 60 countries signed a Declaration on the Responsible Use of AI in the
Military Field, reaffirming that human control must remain a non-negotiable
principle.
In the field of warfare, AI
optimizes target recognition, logistics, and tactical support. Autonomous or
semi-autonomous drones, equipped with computer vision, are capable of carrying
out surveillance, attack, or rescue missions with minimal human intervention
(Moré Gili, 2023).
On the other hand, machine
learning algorithms make it possible to identify patterns of suspicious
behavior in large volumes of data, anticipating possible attacks. This
predictive capability is based on the integration of information from multiple
sources: digital communications, financial movements, and social media
activity.
Big data analysis has made
it possible to uncover terrorist cells before they act. However, the
effectiveness of these systems depends on the quality of the data, which raises
the risk of false profiling and discrimination against certain ethnic or religious
groups (OSCE, 2023).
Conclusions
International humanitarian
law (IHL), despite being an essential and well-established body of law, faces a
landscape marked by unprecedented conflict. The evolution of armed conflicts,
now characterized by terrorism, the participation of non-state actors, and the
use of new technologies, has highlighted the limitations of IHL in responding
effectively to these contemporary realities.
Although IHL has evolved
since its inception with the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, its
capacity to regulate and protect victims in modern conflicts is insufficient in
the face of new challenges. This regulatory gap not only jeopardizes the
effectiveness of existing provisions, but also calls into question the
relevance of IHL in an increasingly complex and dynamic global context.
In turn, this situation
also highlights a crisis in the implementation and effectiveness of IHL, which,
although it establishes clear principles on the distinction and protection of
civilians, fails to ensure compliance in practice. This reality raises fundamental
questions about the political will and capacity of States and other actors to
enforce these rules.
Furthermore, the phenomenon
of terrorism represents one of the greatest challenges to IHL. The
decentralized and transnational nature of terrorist groups, together with their
disregard for international norms, makes it difficult to regulate them under the
traditional framework of IHL.
These actors not only
employ tactics that deliberately target the civilian population, but also
operate outside the reach of conventional mechanisms of sanction and
accountability. In addition, the use of technology to carry out remote attacks,
such as drones and autonomous weapons, raises ethical and legal questions that
IHL has not comprehensively addressed.
While customary law and
developments in international courts have attempted to fill these gaps, the
speed at which conflicts evolve exceeds the capacity of the international legal
system to adapt.
In this context, it is
crucial to strengthen IHL enforcement mechanisms and encourage their adaptation
to new realities. This implies not only a review of existing norms, but also
greater integration with other legal systems, such as human rights and international
criminal law. The convergence of these areas could provide a more comprehensive
framework for addressing violations in armed conflicts and ensuring broader
protection for victims. However, this process requires a firm commitment on the
part of the international community and effective cooperation between States,
international organizations, and civil society.
For its part, 21st-century
terrorism represents a complex challenge that requires a comprehensive approach
and a coordinated response at the global level. Instruments such as UN Security
Council Resolution 1373, which obliges States to prevent and punish the
financing of terrorism, are important advances. However, challenges remain in
relation to cooperation between States, limited resources, and differences in
national legal systems.
For these reasons, it is
recommended that international cooperation between countries be strengthened,
as it is essential for combating terrorism, especially in the areas of
financing, attack prevention, and the capture of those responsible.
International organizations should promote strategic alliances that include the
exchange of intelligence, technology, and resources.
Artificial intelligence
represents an unprecedented technological advance that is redefining
international security and defense mechanisms against terrorism. Its ability to
process massive amounts of data, detect patterns, and anticipate threats offers
states an effective tool for preventing attacks. However, it also raises
ethical and legal dilemmas that challenge the structure of international
humanitarian law (IHL), especially regarding the protection of the civilian
population and the responsibility of the actors involved (Cotino
Hueso & Gómez de Ágreda, 2024). As the United
Nations (2023) points out, AI can strengthen global peace and security only if
it is developed under principles of transparency, meaningful human control, and
respect for fundamental rights.
On the other hand, the use
of lethal autonomous systems and predictive algorithms in military operations
poses a risk of dehumanizing conflict. The International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC, 2023) warns that machines lack moral judgment and empathy, which
are essential for applying the principles of distinction, proportionality, and
humanity that underpin IHL. Similarly, the rise of AI-driven cyberattacks and
mass surveillance jeopardizes basic rights such as privacy, freedom of
expression, and personal integrity. In this sense, technology can become a
double-edged sword: capable of protecting, but also of violating the
humanitarian values it should safeguard.
Given this scenario, it is
imperative that the international community adopt regulatory frameworks to
govern the use of AI in war and counterterrorism contexts. It is necessary to
promote technological governance that guarantees accountability, algorithmic
transparency, and effective human control at all stages of AI development and
application (Pinho de Oliveira & Bueno Montilla, 2025). Likewise,
cooperation between states, international organizations, and private actors
must be strengthened to build a more secure and responsible digital
environment. Only by striking a balance between innovation and ethics will it
be possible to ensure that artificial intelligence truly contributes to the
protection of humanity and the consolidation of sustainable peace (UN, 2023;
OSCE, 2023).
It is imperative to
strengthen IHL regulations to include specific provisions addressing modern
forms of terrorism, such as cyberattacks. This involves developing protocols to
protect critical infrastructure and digital systems, while ensuring respect for
human rights.
This last recommendation
would go hand in hand with the need to strengthen regional mechanisms such as
the OAS, which should play a more active role in coordinating regional efforts,
harmonizing legal frameworks, and strengthening the capacities of States.
The evolution of armed
conflicts has tested the ability of IHL to adapt and respond to contemporary
challenges. While it remains an essential legal framework, its future relevance
will depend on its ability to innovate and consolidate itself as a dynamic and
robust system. The fight against terrorism cannot be limited to repressive
measures; it is necessary to address the structural causes of extremism,
ensuring decent living conditions and equal opportunities for all people.
Ultimately, only through a
comprehensive, multidimensional, and long-term strategy will it be possible to
mitigate the impact of terrorism and ensure a more secure and stable future for
generations to come.
References
Abad, A. (2009). El terrorismo y sus raíces
profundas. Editorial Universitaria.
Abad, M. (2009). TERRORISMO, DERECHO
INTERNACIONAL HUMANITARIO Y CONFLICTOS ARMADOS ACTUALES . Madrid.
Aguilar,
J. M. (Enero de 2021). Revista de Estudios
Internacionales de la Universidad
de Chile. Obtenido de Retos y oportunidades en materia de ciberseguridad de
América Latina frente al contexto global de ciberamenazas
a la seguridad nacional y política exterior: https://revistaei.uchile.cl/index.php/REI/article/view/57067/67159
Bassiouni, M. (2014). International terrorism
and the law. Cambridge University Press. Cassese, A. (2024). International Law. Oxford University Press.
Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja . (2004). ¿Qué es el derecho
internacional humanitario? Ginebra.
Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja . (2017). International humanitarian law and the fight against terrorism. .
Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja . (2018). Torture in the fight against terrorism: A violation of international humanitarian law.
Comité
Internacional de la Cruz Roja (CICR). (2023). Las ciberoperaciones durante los conflictos armados.
https://www.icrc.org/es/derecho-y-politicas/las-ciberoperaciones-durante-los-conflictos-armados
Dómine, J. (2006). Terrorismo, política
y sociedad: una reflexión crítica. Ediciones AKAL.
Cotino Hueso, L.,
& Gómez de Ágreda, Á. (2024). Criterios éticos y de derecho internacional
humanitario en el uso de sistemas militares dotados de inteligencia artificial.
Novum Jus, 18(1), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2024.18.1.9
EFE. (2025, 20 de agosto). La ONU alerta
de que el Estado Islámico usa la IA para reclutar yihadistas. SWI
swissinfo.ch. https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/la-onu-alerta-de-que-el-estado-isl%C3%A1mico-usa-la-ia-para-reclutar-yihadistas/89868225
Fernández de Casadevante Romaní,
C. (2009). Las víctimas y el Derecho Internacional.
Universidad de Navarra
.
Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. Reino
Unido : Sage Publications.
Gussing-sapina, A. (2007).
Curso introductorio sobre derecho internacional humanitario.
Heisbourg,
F. (2002). El terrorismo: mitos y realidades. Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
Ibarz,
E. (s.f.). La guerra justa en la era del terror.
Revista
CIDOB d’Afers
Internacionals, 81.
Kalshoven, F., & Zegveld, L. (2012). Constraints on the
Waging of War, An Introduction to International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press.
Leiva, E. (2015).
Estrategias Nacionales de Ciberseguridad: Estudio Comparativo Basado en Enfoque Top-Down
desde una Visión
Global a una Visión Local. Revista Latinoamericana de Ingeniería de Software, 162.
López,
J. (2015). Derecho Internacional Humanitario y terrorismo: retos contemporáneos. Editorial Jurídica
.
Meron, T. (2006). The
Humanization of International Law.
Miller, R. (2019). Cyber warfare
and international humanitarian law. Oxford University Press.
Moré Gili, J. (2023, 5 de junio). Inteligencia
Artificial en el campo militar. La aterradora realidad. Saturdays.AI. https://saturdays.ai/2023/06/05/inteligencia-artificial-campo-militar/
Organización
para la Seguridad y la Cooperación en Europa (OSCE). (2023). Artificial
Intelligence and P/CVERLT: Challenges and Opportunities – Key Findings.
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/f/575877.pdf
ONU. (2013).
Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context
of International Security.
ONU. (2019).
The protection of civilians
in armed conflict:
Addressing the challenges of contemporary warfare.
ONU. (2023). Recomendación sobre la Ética de la Inteligencia Artificial.
París: UNESCO.
Pérez, L. (2016). La lucha contra el terrorismo en América
Latina: El papel de la OEA.
Editorial OEA.
Pinho De Oliveira, M.
F., & Bueno Montilla, A. (2025). Aportes teóricos sobre el uso de la
inteligencia artificial en los sistemas de armas autónomas desde la perspectiva
del Derecho Internacional Humanitario. Derecho Global. Estudios sobre
Derecho y Justicia, 10(29), 479–511. https://doi.org/10.32870/dgedj.v10i29.809.
Pons Gamón, V. (2017). Internet,
la nueva era del delito:
ciberdelito, ciberterrorismo,
legislación y ciberseguridad. Revista
Latinoamericana de Estudios de Seguridad.
Salmón, J. (2003). Las relaciones internacionales en el siglo XXI: Retos y perspectivas. Editorial Universitaria.
Sancho Hirare, C. (2017). Ciberseguridad. Presentación del dossier.
Revista Latinoamericana de
Estudios de Seguridad, 8-9.
Swinarski, C.
(1984). Studies and essays in
international humanitarian law and Red Cross
principles in honour of Jean Pictet.
Geneva: International Committee
of the the Red Cross.
Thieux, M. (2005). La lucha contra el terrorismo: Nuevas estrategias y desafíos.
Editorial Planeta.
