ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV

The Power of Principles: Navigating Law, Tech, and Ethics in Modern Conflict

The Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology (CMIST) commenced the year’s first Lawfully Speaking event with a presentation by Major General (Ret.) Charles J. Dunlap Jr. A professor of the practice and executive director of Duke Law’s Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security, Dunlap spent over 34 years as a military lawyer. In his talk, “Law, Technology, and the Future of Conflict,” Dunlap contended that as artificial intelligence, cyber tools, autonomous systems, and emerging weaponry reshape modern conflict, the law should focus less on creating rules for every new technology and more on preserving broad principles such as human dignity, restraint, and the protection of civilians. Following his remarks, Dunlap sat down with CMIST Director Audrey Kurth Cronin for a “fireside chat,” inviting questions from the audience.

The Unintended Consequences of Innovation

Using the seemingly straightforward example of military helmets, Dunlap opened his talk by exploring the paradox of military innovation. While modern helmets unquestionably save soldiers’ lives on the battlefield, they also create unintended consequences. As more service members survive catastrophic impacts, many are left with severe, life-altering injuries. Dunlap connected this idea to the history of artillery, which was once viewed as a technology that could help end wars, but instead has become one of the leading causes of battlefield casualties. These examples illustrated the broader point that new military technologies can have consequences that are difficult to anticipate. Dunlap used this tension as a starting point for examining different technologies and how the law addresses their use.

Because technology evolves at a blistering pace, Dunlap argued that laws governing armed conflict shouldn’t attempt to create hyper-specific rules for every new piece of hardware or software. Instead, they should be grounded in broad legal principles that can adapt as technology changes. While the tools used in war may continue to develop, the underlying questions of human dignity, proportionality, and the responsibilities owed to people during conflict remain much more consistent.

Civilians on the Digital Frontlines 

Dunlap’s broader argument is that, while the tools and participants in warfare may change, the law must rely on enduring principles to determine who is protected and what conduct is permissible during conflict. This becomes more challenging as technology evolves. Leading those foundational principles is the legal distinction between combatants and civilians, a boundary that technology increasingly has blurred. 

In a trend he described as a “democratization of lethality,” Dunlap highlighted how individuals and private companies outside traditional armed forces can play direct roles in conflict. The Russia–Ukraine War offers an example. Smartphones and encrypted messaging apps have enabled civilians to share information about military activity, raising questions about when civilian actions constitute direct participation in hostilities.

The same issue extends to private companies. Dunlap pointed to Starlink, a commercial satellite internet service used by Ukrainian forces, and Microsoft’s work supporting Ukraine’s response to cyberattacks. These examples illustrate his central concern: As technology draws civilians and private companies further into conflict, applying longstanding legal principles to these new roles becomes complex.

The Reality of Hyper-Speed

Sheer speed emerged as another major challenge. Technology has made it possible for information and weapons to move faster than ever, leaving military personnel with less time to evaluate what is happening and respond. 

Dunlap described this as the “speed of relevance”: a decision made too late may no longer matter. He explained that when troops request immediate air support, there may not be enough time for a lawyer or commander to review the situation. Instead, the person on the ground must rely on their understanding of the rules of engagement and the information available to them. 

Speed comes with a cost. Even when decisions are made reasonably, the information behind them may be incomplete, outdated, or wrong. Dunlap emphasized that no matter how advanced technology becomes, it can’t take the place of human judgment or responsibility. When targeting decisions go wrong, he argued, technology can’t simply take the blame. Military personnel must still weigh the information in front of them and make the best decisions possible, even when they have only seconds to act.

Human Accountability in the Machine Age 

As automated systems get further integrated into military operations, Dunlap argued that the law must be flexible enough to respond to new threats without abandoning core principles. During the Q&A, an audience member asked whether changing technology is making existing laws outdated, particularly as military capabilities overlap with areas traditionally handled by law enforcement. 

Dunlap pushed back against the idea that older legal principles should be simply discarded. “Never get so married to your ideas that new facts can change,” he said, emphasizing that the law itself can evolve alongside technology. He pointed to cyber operations as an example, noting that some threats require capabilities that traditional law enforcement agencies may not possess. The challenge, he suggested, is determining how to use those capabilities while maintaining clear legal boundaries and accountability.

Recognizing that many faculty and students at ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV work across fields that are connected to national security, Dunlap encouraged those in the audience to think beyond their individual areas of study to understand how different fields interact. From the unintended consequences of technological innovation to the importance of human accountability, the challenges of modern conflict require collaboration across technology, policy, law, and computer science. The future of conflict won’t be determined by technology alone, but by the developers who build it, the leaders who deploy it, and the legal framework that keeps it in check.

Image 1: Major General (Ret.) Charles J. Dunlap Jr. speaking to audience; Image 2, left to right: Audrey Kurth Cronin speaking with Dunlap; Image 3: Dunlap takes a question; Image 4: Cronin and Dunlap addressing audience; Image 4: Audience member asking question