You Rebel scum. The poor Galactic Empire always gets painted as the murderous bad guys in Star Wars. But from a certain point of view, one can sort of empathize with the Emperor’s legions in their collective anger towards the Rebels. After all, Alliance forces obliterated not one but two Death Stars, killing over 2 million Imperials in the process.
Those were men, women, and dianogas with families, many of whom likely joined the Empire out of a wholly non-evil desire to serve the galaxy. That kind of wholesale destruction begs the question of whether the Rebels cemented themselves as the biggest terrorists in the galaxy by unlawfully blowing up both Death Stars.
Valiant Imperial aces rush to protect their home against the radical Rebel attackers.
Before we talk about all the personnel aboard, lets consider whether both Death Stars were lawful military objectives themselves. Under the law of armed conflict not everything can be attacked at will—certain places and persons are legally protected from attack. For example, the Geneva Conventions forbids intentional attacks civilians or religious and cultural sites. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions defines military objectives as “those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction…in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”
Somewhere aboard the Death Star, Admiral Motti is yelling “BOOM! HEY VADER DID YOU SEE THAT—WHOSE POWER IS INSIGNIFICANT NOW?!”
Unfortunately for the Empire, both Death Stars fit that bill neatly and were therefore valid military objectives. The Death Stars were not designed to be floating research labs or peaceful exploration vessels. Instead, both were purpose-built military doomsday lasers intended to cement the Empire’s control over the galaxy. From wiping out Alderaan to destroying massive Rebel Mon Calamari cruisers in a single shot, the destructive power of the Death Stars significantly contributed to military action.
In the wake of Jedha, Scarif, and Alderaan, the first Death Star proved itself as a weapon unmatched by anything in the fledgling Rebel arsenal. The weapon threatened the very existence of the Alliance, not to mention thousands of innocent people across the galaxy. Destroying it therefore offered an absolute military advantage to the Rebels. Doing so would not only neutralize the most terrifying weapon the galaxy had ever seen, but it would also eliminate a tremendous amount of other enemy equipment and personnel.
Let’s also not forget that at the time of the Rebel attack, the first Death Star was not on some mercy mission to Yavin. It was there to, as Tarkin so eloquently put it, crush the Rebellion in one swift stroke, thereby ending the galactic civil war. Given the threat of imminent destruction, Rebel forces had an absolute right to act in self-defense and attack the Death Star. Even though the Rebels were initially on the offensive against the second Death Star, they had a similar right to self-defense once it started reducing the Rebel fleet to ash.
The Emperor’s presence on the second Death Star was an added enticement for the Rebels. As the leader of the Galactic Empire and commander-in-chief of its military forces, the Alliance rightly recognized that killing the Emperor would grant them an undeniable military advantage. Given his total control over Imperial forces, his death would likely decapitate the Empire and send its military into chaos and disarray. Therefore, there is no question that both Death Stars were valid military targets.
Alas, maybe Tarkin would have taken Chief Bast more seriously if he reminded him that they were standing on a gigantic valid military target.
Now what about those millions of poor Imperial souls who lost their lives to the Rebels’ treachery? Sadly, even though most of them didn’t even fire a shot, the throngs of Stormtroopers, officers, and other military personnel were perfectly legal targets.
The law of war dictates that only combatants or those directly participating in hostilities may be targeted. Combatants include anyone engaging in hostilities in an armed conflict on behalf of a party to the conflict. Imperials aboard both Death Stars were combatants by virtue of the fact that they were uniformed soldiers of the Empire. Imperial troops aboard the Death Stars may not have been leaning out of windows actively firing their blasters at Rebel ships, but nevertheless their status as Imperial soldiers effectively painted a bullseye on their backs. That means that it was perfectly legal for the Rebels to target every uniformed Imperial, whether an ace TIE pilot or stormtrooper on sanitation detail (sorry, Finn) aboard both Death Stars.
Don’t tell the Imperial propagandists, but the Rebels acted perfectly within the law of war when they destroyed both Death Stars. While the destruction of both battle stations led to a sobering loss of life, at least it made for a great fireworks show.
The Dark Side is known for raw power, not paperwork. In preparing to construct the ill-fated Starkiller Base, did the First Order prepare any sort of Environmental Impact Statement prior to turning the planet into a weapon?
By way of comparison, and in no way comparing the First Order to the current EPA, Federal agencies undertaking a project that can significantly affect “the quality of the human environment,” must prepare a detailed statement on:
(i) The environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) Alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) The relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
42 U.S.C.S. § 4332.
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) must be more than a checklist of assurances and alternatives. An EIS must indicate the agency undertook searching, realistic analysis of hazards, and candidly address those concerns. Foundation on Economic Trends v Weinberger 610 F Supp 829 (1985, DC Dist Col).
Courts review EIS to insure that the government took a “hard look” at possible environmental consequences, not highly speculative consequences. ESI’s will be approved if the document “adequately discloses potential impacts of project given information on hand and gives decision makers enough information so that intelligent decision can be made whether to proceed with project.” Enos v Marsh 616 F Supp 32, (1984, DC Hawaii), affirmed 769 F2d 1363, (1985, CA9 Hawaii).
Did General Armitage Hux take a “hard look” at the possible environmental consequences of turning a planet into a Super Weapon? Most likely not. Digging a trench across the equatorial axis of a planet that was visible from space, meant that thousands of miles of the planet had been excavated. How many indigenous animals had their habitats destroyed as entire continents were unearthed?
Weaponizing the power of a star through a planet sounds like a high risk activity. Any system failure could either do massive damage to the planet or destroy it. Furthermore, did the First Order consider that the failure of the Super Weapon oscillator could result in the destruction of the planet? Did they consider such a failure as a speculative consequence and not a possible one if the oscillator was destroyed? Given the fact the planet had a defensive shield, it appears the First Order took this risk as a possible one.
The First Order clearly did not have any interest in protecting the environment on Starkiller Base. The planet was a means to an end to execute a Neo-Doctrine of Fear. While the late Grand Moff Tarkin would have appreciated the vision, the First Order did not account for any adverse environmental effects of a planetary weapons system.
That euphoric feeling you have right about now isn’t from death sticks—it’s because we’re only a few days out from THE LAST JEDI.
Starting Sunday, December 10th, join The Legal Geeks contributor and resident hopeless Star Wars addict Thomas Harperfor a series of daily new Star Wars articles counting down the last days before Rey, Finn, Luke, Leia, and the rest of the gang finally return.
Back in the days when Star Wars was just the original trilogy and the beloved Holiday Special (that’s the correct usage for “beloved,” right?), things were fairly black and white for the Rebellion. Their struggle against the Galactic Empire was daunting, but the Alliance was portrayed as a scrappy but unified group that shared a common goal.
Fast-forward to Rogue One and Star Wars Rebels and suddenly the Rebels’ fight is not so simple anymore. Instead of a cohesive group of do-gooders, these new stories portray the Rebel Alliance in a more realistic fashion. We see the Rebellion as a troubled group dogged just as much by internal fractures as they are by Imperial forces.
Star Wars dialogue about the law of war? Be still my beating heart.
A big part of their internal struggle is deciding how exactly they should fight the Empire. The recent Star Wars Rebels episode “In the Name of the Rebellion” dove into the Rebellion’s debate about how to wage war. In it, Saw Gerrera confronts Mon Mothma over her unwillingness to take more extreme measures in the fight against the Empire. Mon Mothma fires back, accusing Saw of breaking the rules of engagement and killing civilians and prisoners.
In her fiery retort, Mon Mothma touches on some very real concerns that are at the heart of the law of war. Long ago, the Latin maxim “Silent enim leges inter arma” (or, “In times of war, the law falls silent”) spoke to the lawless chaos of war. While Saw Gerrera probably has that slogan tattooed on him somewhere, the belief that war was inherently lawless was discarded long ago. Laws, customs, and treaties developed over the course of millennia to help reign in war’s lawless carnage. Those rules collectively became known as the law of war.
The concept of trying to apply rules to something as destructive and frenzied as war might seem silly. However, the law of war serves to bring some semblance of humanity to warfare by protecting fundamental human rights and guarding against unnecessary suffering.
Perhaps the Ewoks need a bit of…mentorship in the fine art of not being carnivorous war criminals.
How the Rebel Alliances chooses to wage its war against the Empire is therefore a critically important decision—one that Mon Mothma gets right. Saw Gerrera sees the Empire as a brutal, unyielding foe who must be met with an equally brutal resolve. Imperial forces certainly have little concern for the law of war—to Saw Gerrera, that’s reason enough to show no restraint or mercy. He openly mocks Mon Mothma because he believes that the Rebellion is doomed to failure as long as it tries to fight honorably against such a dastardly opponent.
But Saw is blinded by his unbridled thirst for vengeance. His endgame is not a fight for the fate of the galaxy, but a bloodletting designed to make the Empire pay. His tactics of killing civilians and prisoners severely undermine the larger Rebel effort. In Rebel Rising, Saw’s forces assassinate an Imperial governor and intentionally massacre countless civilians in the process. Saw’s objective was to send a message to Emperor Palpatine about what the Empire was up against. In reality, the mass murder achieved virtually nothing and instead fueled Imperial efforts to portray the rebels as frightening terrorists.
The Galactic Empire would like to extend its warm appreciation to Saw Gerrera, whose generous battlefield foolishness helped make this propaganda campaign possible.
On real world battlefields, violating the law of war is often a similarly powerful motivator for enemy forces. Late in World War II, Hitler ordered his commanders at the Battle of the Bulge to be especially brutal during the battle to frighten Allied forces. In response to Hitler’s orders, Nazi forces in Malmedy, Belgium infamously executed 84 American prisoners of war during the battle. However, word of the “Malmedy Massacre” quickly spread through Allied ranks, sparking outrage that fueled American forces to break the back of the German offensive.
Mon Mothma’s choice to have the Rebels fight according to the law of war is a reflection of the Alliance’s ultimate goal of restoring the galaxy. She recognizes that the Rebellion has no chance at victory if it does not win over the hearts and minds of galactic citizens. The Empire’s willingness to violate the law of war is no excuse for the Rebellion to do the same. Stooping to the Empire’s level and trading in atrocities would all but forfeit the moral high ground and give citizens little reason to rally to their cause—a result that would doom their movement as much as any devastating loss in battle.
Saw’s tirade against Mon Mothma wrongly paints the law of war and rules of engagement as needless restrictions that handcuff Rebel forces. What he fails to see is that sticking to those rules can actually be a “combat multiplier,” or in other words, something that dramatically enhances effectiveness and helps accomplish the mission.
During the Gulf War, Allied forces used leaflets like the one below to tempt Iraqi forces to surrender by highlighting the protections and humane treatment they would receive. The leaflets showcased U.S. respect for the law of war and were a huge success on the battlefield, motivating large numbers of Iraqis to peacefully surrender.
Leaflet dropped during the Gulf War. The text on the backside read: The U.S. abides by the rules of the Geneva Convention. Ceasing fire will provide you humane treatment, food and water, medical treatment, shelter, and return to your homes after hostilities.
Lord Vader wasn’t the type to throw down his lightsaber just because Rebels played by the rules. Nonetheless, the Alliance’s respect for the law of war led to similar tactical successes. Although the Battle of Endor far from ended the war, countless Imperials surrendered to Rebel forces, including two super star destroyers. Similarly, the Galactic Concordance flexed the rule of law and law of war to help usher the final surrender of remaining Imperial forces, ending the Galactic Civil War. Those successes would have never occurred if Mon Mothma had cast aside the Alliance’s core values and let the law fall silent during war.
Rather than attend a class on the law of war, Saw Gerrera chooses obliteration by Death Star.
Forces of DestinyAn Imperial Feast has revealed a truth about Ewoks after the battle of Endor: captured Imperials were going to be fire roasted alive. It is unknown if any Storm Troopers were indeed cooked as part of the victory feast seen in Return of the Jedi, but at least one group of prisoners of war were saved from the dinner menu by Leia Organa.
The issue of eating POWs was the central charges of the war crimes trial for the Japanese officers on Chichi Jima after World War 2. James Bradley tells the full extent of the cannibalism in great detail in his book Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. The trial was the first time that cannibalism and torture were allegations for war crimes. See, BOOK REVIEW: Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese War Crimes Trials, 171 Mil. L. Rev. 220, 224 and Celebrating Volume 50: The Early History of the Washburn Law Journal, 50 Washburn L.J. 433, 440-441, citing George E. Erickson, Jr., Note, United States Navy War Crimes Trials (1945-1949), 5 WASHBURN L.J. 89 (1965). Torture ultimately was not addressed as a war crime until 1980. Judgment at Tokyo, at *224. Moreover, Bradley explained that since cannibalism, as vengeance killings had never been an issue before, the prosecutors charged the Japanese officers with desecration of a corpse.
The carnivorous Ewoks carried Imperial POWs out on stakes to be cooked over an open fire. Others Storm Troopers were restrained to watch their fellow service members cooked alive. One Ewok struck a bound Trooper when Leia Organa attempted to stop the Ewoks from murdering their prisoners of war. This conduct would fall under the many recognized forms of war crimes including:
I) Torture, because 1) striking a bound POW was designed to inflict physical and mental pain for punishment or intimidation; and 2) imprisoned Storm Troopers forced to watch their fellow service members stripped and cooked alive over an open fire would cause mental suffering;
II) Cooking POWs is cruel or inhuman treatment for the infliction of serious physical and mental suffering;
III) The act of killing Storm Trooper POWs for dinner is murder;
IV) Cooking Storm Troopers would be mutilation or maiming; and
V) Slow roasting Storm Troopers on a rotisserie would intentionally cause serious bodily harm to the prisoners of war.
18 U.S.C.S. § 2441(A), (B), (D), (E), and (F).
If remnants of the Empire captured Ewoks for prosecution, it is very clear that Ewoks purposely committed an opening crawl worth of war crimes. The act of cooking prisoners of war would be horrific crimes of torture and murder. General Organa was justified in stopping these atrocities, but the question remains, how many helmets used as drums during the tribal performance of “Yub Nub,” belonged to Storm Troopers who were eaten by Ewoks?
In the Star Wars Rebels episode The Lost Commanders, we learn that some clone troopers survived past the Clone Wars era and into the Galactic Empire era. Furthermore, during Star Wars Celebration 2017, Star Wars Rebels showrunner Dave Filoni hinted that the old man soldier featured in the Endor strike team in Return of the Jedi could be Rex. This got me thinking, if Rex could have survived into the rise of the New Republic, other clone troopers could have too. Although Rex, Wolffe, and Gregor were able to remove their inhibitor chips (hereafter chips) allowing them to disobey Order 66, many clones like Cody followed through with Order 66. If a clone like Cody survived into the New Republic era, could he be tried for the murders of the Jedi he executed through Order 66?
Rex (left), Gregor (center), and Wolffe (right).
In the Star Wars: The Clone Wars (hereafter The Clone Wars) episode Fugitive, Nala Se, a Kaminoan doctor, states that the chips inhibit aggression in the clones. However it is later revealed that the chips also had the ability to force the clones to comply with complete obedience to preprogrammed orders. The chips had almost a hypnotic effect as depicted in The Clone Wars episode Conspiracy, where the clone Tup, who has a defective chip that activated prematurely to Order 66, repeatedly mutters, “Good soldiers follow orders…” Later in the episode, Tup reacts to another Jedi master by going from a muddled mental state to crazily lunging at the Jedi Master. Tup’s actions were more like a compulsive reaction than a calculated decision. In events depicted in Revenge of the Sith, clones comply with Order 66 without any hesitation, gunning down Jedi Generals who had led them throughout the Clone Wars. The clones’ lack of any aggression in Revenge of the Sith may be a result of improved chip technology. However, Tup’s reaction revealed that the clones’ reaction to orders from the chip may be compulsive in nature.
Inhibitor chip
First, what kind of crimes would these clones be tried for? Technically, they were following the orders of the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. In the Nuremberg and Eichmann cases, Nazi war criminals were tried for their war crimes, but many defended themselves by saying they were simply following orders. The Nuremberg and Eichmann cases are the closest historical examples we may use to analyze how the clones could be tried. In the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the defendants were tried under criminal liability and the defense presented the superior orders defense to show that the individual defendants did not have a “true moral choice” in respect to their actions. The Nuremberg and Eichmann trials focused on the actions and intent of individual defendants. In the Eichmann trial, the court found that Adolf Eichmann, a high ranking SS officer, unsuccessfully presented a “necessity” defense, because he had performed his orders “at all times con amore, that is with full zeal and devotion to the task.” Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann, 16 Piske Din 2033 (1962) (Isr.) (hereafter Eichmann).
Clone trooper Tup (right) moments before killing Jedi Master Tiplar (left) due to a malfunctioning inhibitor chip.
After applying these standards to clones, it appears that most clones would be able to successfully mount defenses against their crimes against the Jedi. Criminal law seeks to “punish individuals for acts for which they are morally culpable.” Nguyen Thang Loi v. Dow Chem. Co. (In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig.), 373 F. Supp. 2d 7 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). The clone troopers were unable to make a “moral” decision because the chips in their brains forced them to comply. Thus, the clones could not form any intent or make any moral choices in regards to their decision to execute their Jedi Generals. Instead, they were forced by an artificial compulsion to execute their Jedi superiors. In addition, in the Eichmann trial, the court used specific language stating that Adolf Eichmann performed his duties with “full zeal and devotion to the task.” (Eichmann, 1962). Again, because the clones were following an almost compulsive and subconscious need to follow orders, it is unlikely that they were carrying out their orders with a similar “zeal and devotion.” (Ibid.)
A fervent defender of clones could also introduce a defense to show that the chips were akin to brain damage to the clones. In The Clone Wars episodes Conspiracy and Fugitive, AZI-3, the medical droid aiding Fives investigate Tup’s mysterious actions, first mistakes the chip as a tumor. The chip’s similarity to a tumor means that one could raise the defense that the chips acted as brain tumors which caused the clones to act murderously and irrationally.
Fives’ head after his inhibitor chip is removed.
In Brubaker v. Dickson (hereafter Brubaker), the court found that medical history of the defendant’s brain damage and medical analysis that the brain damage “was ‘of a type often associated with abnormal and otherwise unexplainable conduct’” was significant and remanded the case back down to the district court for further analysis of the significance of the brain damage. 310. F.2d 30, 33 (9th Cir. 1962). The medical analysis also noted that the defendant was not “‘insane’ [but rather] had a compulsive personality marked by strong emotional instability.” (Ibid.) This defense is definitely something one could present when defending a clone trooper. The chips effectively acted as tumors or brain damage that caused the clones to perform “abnormal and otherwise unexplainable conduct.”
As a result, it appears that surviving clones should not fear being successfully prosecuted by any anti-Clone New Republic era prosecutors. Under our understanding of the legal standards of how war criminals are treated and how courts analyze brain damage, clones seem to be able to mount successful defenses against any charges against them.
KILLER ROBOTS. The very mention of those soulless death machines conjures nightmares of Skynet becoming self-aware, Cylons on the warpath, or renegade Roy Batty. From Terminator to Battlestar Galactica, murderous automatons have woven their way into the public psyche, as has our fear that robots will take over the world and convert us all to batteries Matrix-style.
Star Wars admittedly lacks any single iconic killer robot (sorry, Darth Vader—you’re only part machine). Nevertheless, from battle droids to IG-88 or probe droids, the galaxy far far away is filled to the brim with autonomous weapon systems.
Despite their futuristic depiction in movies, automated weapon systems are nothing new in real world militaries. The U.S. military does not employ any fully autonomous weapon systems, but they’ve been using weapons with varying levels of autonomy for decades. For example, the Army’s Patriot missile system and the Navy’s close in weapon system (CIWS or “Sea-Whiz”), two semi-autonomous “man on the loop” weapon systems, have been in service for years.
Not exactly the T-1000, but remote Gatling guns and giant automated missiles will do.
The legality of autonomous weapon systems has become an increasingly important and controversial topic as technology has rapidly advanced. In 2015, Tesla founder Elon Musk and renowned scientist Stephen Hawking organized a coalition of 1,000 robotics experts who called for a ban on automated smart weapons. As the U.S. military’s arsenal continues to evolve, the lawfulness of increasingly automated weapons will remain a major issue on the international stage.
While the Galactic Empire has its fair share of automated weapons, we’ll keep our focus on the prequel era and the Separatist army’s droid legions. Before we tackle the legality of all those battle and destroyer droids, let’s take a step back and get some framework on the issue.
Watch your back, HAL 9000. The dreaded B-1 battle droid will haunt your dreams with its ruthless efficiency.
First, let’s figure out what the term “autonomous weapon system” means. There is no agreed upon international definition for the term, but the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) defines automated weapon systems as those that, when activated, are capable of selecting and engaging targets without further human intervention. In other words, although a human operator might have the ability to take control of the system, the system is capable of operating without any human involvement.
The Separatist Army’s legions of battle droids and other mechanical terrors clearly qualify as autonomous weapon systems. Take the mainstay of their forces, the trusty B-1 battle droid. While battle droids became slightly more advanced as the Clone Wars dragged on, they were always built to be capable of operating without further human (or Neimoidian if we’re going to be all technical about it) intervention.
Even in The Phantom Menace, when a single Trade Federation ship controlled the entire droid army, the droids themselves operated without any involvement from federation personnel. While the battle droids may have acted based on programming and Trade Federation orders, they were never directly controlled. Droids can be seen doing all sorts of independent tasks from guarding prisoners in the Theed Palace hangar to mounting a full assault on the Gungan army. The more advanced models, like the Commando Droids or Super Tactical Droids seen in The Clone Wars animated series, performed even more complicated tasks with total independence. Even though Separatist commanders retained the ability to shut down or override the droids, they still qualify as autonomous weapon systems.
Viceroy Gunray showcases the latest in autonomous laziness systems with his frivolous robot chair.
While the international community can’t agree on a definition for autonomous weapon systems, there is universal agreement that the law of armed conflict (LOAC) applies to them. To figure out whether a particular weapon is legal, we have to turn to the creatively named area of LOAC known as weapons law.
Weapons law focuses on the overall legality of the weapon, without regard to how it’s used. As an example, a poison like the Blue Shadow Virus in The Clone Wars, is deemed per se unlawful under LOAC, no matter what the intended use. Even if the Separatists wanted to use the virus against a lawful target, such as a group of clone troopers on patrol, it would still be illegal to use.
Whether autonomous or not, the legality of all weapons are determined by the same three distinct rules: (1) The weapon cannot cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury by nature; (2) The weapon cannot cause uncontrollable effects; (3) The weapon must not be indiscriminate by nature.
As humanity became increasingly good at creating horrible weapons, the outcry for rules that would reign in the suffering grew. The ban on weapons that cause unnecessary suffering was one of the earliest prohibitions codified in international law, first appearing in the 1899 Hague Convention. The rule, which is now woven into international law, is intended to ban weapons that, by their nature, aggravate a combatant’s wounds. A prime real world example is projectiles filled with glass, which cause major additional wounding. The glass fragments are then very difficult to remove because they cannot be seen on x-ray, which only compounds the suffering.
The very finest in terrible, horrible, no good Imperial weaponry. Grand Moff Tarkin would be so proud.
In Star Wars Rebels, the Empire’s dreaded T-7 ion disruptor rifles are a gruesome example of the sort of weapon that would be banned by this rule. T-7s were long rifles that would disintegrate organic beings atom by atom, leading to an excruciating death. While Boba Fett might fully approve of those effects, the T-7 disruptor is exactly the sort of weapon that would be banned in the real world. Coincidentally, the Galactic senate ultimately banned disruptors due to their terrible effects.
In contrast, the bulk of the Separatist Army would not violate this rule. Battle droids function like normal soldiers, armed with blasters and standard programming to engage and destroy the enemy. Even though those droids could theoretically be programmed or ordered to cause unnecessary suffering, they aren’t designed cause those effects. That distinction is critical because the rule focuses on the weapon system’s effect on a targeted individual, not the manner in which it is used. Any weapon system can be used in an illegal manner, but that doesn’t mean that the weapon itself is automatically illegal.
Second, weapons law prohibits the use of weapons that have uncontrollable effects, regardless of how accurately they can strike targets. Unfortunately for the Separatists, their prized Blue Shadow Virus gets the axe under this rule. While the virus might only be used against a lawful target like clone troopers, there’s no way to control its spread. Those same clones could easily infect civilians and other innocents, triggering an uncontrollable spread of the virus. However, Separatist automated droid forces don’t cause the same spiraling uncontrollable effects. Although swarms of droids were wielded to inflict devastating damage, their blasters, rocket launchers, and other conventional weaponry cause predictable damage with controllable effects. The droids’ automation doesn’t change that conclusion.
The Threepio-Battle Droid hybrid: An uncontrollable powder keg of murderous robot rage.
Finally, LOAC prohibits weapons that are indiscriminate by their very nature. Under Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, any means of combat that cannot be directed against a specific military objective is unlawful. In other words, if the weapon cannot be aimed at a lawful military target, it’s probably not legal. Though not autonomous, the Death Star, everyone’s favorite orbital war crime, is a perfect example of an illegal weapon that is indiscriminate in nature. The battle station was designed to destroy entire planets, which is probably the most black and white example of indiscriminate targeting ever (just ask the poor Alderaanians).
Separatist droid forces don’t run afoul of this rule. Battle droids were often made to kill indiscriminately throughout the Clone Wars, as we saw with their killing of Naboo civilians in The Phantom Menace. But just because they can be used in that manner doesn’t mean they are indiscriminate by their very nature. The droid forces aren’t pre-programmed to kill anyone they come into contact with. Similarly, they have the ability to aim their weapons (even if they happen to make Stormtroopers look like crack shots) and select their targets. Given their programming, the lack of individual control over the droids doesn’t render them indiscriminate weapon systems.
Just as with any conventional weapon, the legality of new autonomous weaponry must go through a legal review process. Under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, High Contracting Parties such as the U.S. are required to determine whether the Geneva Conventions or international law would prohibit the new piece of weaponry. In practice, the U.S. conducts a complex and thorough weapons review process. The process starts early in the weapon’s development process and continues through production to ensure the weapon is legal. As we’ve seen, the fact that a weapon system is automated doesn’t control the analysis, but instead is merely one factor.
Count Dooku’s reaction after being told the Separatists must conduct legal reviews on all of their droid weapons.
I’m going to go out a limb and declare that the Separatists don’t have any mechanism for reviewing the legality of their weaponry. Their frequent loose adherence to the law of war strongly suggests that they’re not all too concerned with the opinions of galactic lawyers. Nevertheless, Viceroy Gunray can rest easy on his robot chair—while the Separatist droid hordes may be fully automated, they don’t run afoul of the law of armed conflict.
