The aim of this thesis is to inspect how international law tends to exclude girls’ as holder of their rights, when they are associated with armed conflict. From the view of a legal approach, different terms in conventions- optional- and additional protocols have interprets and systematizes to make de lege lata for girls’ in international law able to establish. From the theoretical sight of formal and substantial equality, which assume that equal rights do not function in a world build on the structure of a male, the research of the study shows a number of terms within international law that tends to exclude girls as holders of their rights. The result shows that those terms due to social construction, which express the differences between girls and boys, is overlooked in the international lege lata. The result makes therefore the male standard of the terms advantage for boys.

Som ett resultat av attackerna mot USA den 11 september 2001 förklarade dåvarande president George W Bush krig mot terrorismen den 20 september samma år. Sex dagar senare undertecknade Bush ett direktiv vilket auktoriserade den civila amerikanska underrättelsetjänsten Central Intelligence Agency att utföra riktat dödande mot fördefinierade individer i syftet att förhindra nya attacker från terroristnätverket Al Qaeda, talibanerna och associerade styrkor. Bush initierade det amerikanska bruket av så kallade ”drone strikes” i anslutning till krigsförklaringen med intentionen att eliminera misstänkta terrorister utan möjlighet till en rättvis rättegång, Obama-administrationen har valt att fortsätta utöva policyn. Syftet med studien är att fastställa huruvida USA:s juridiska rättfärdigande och bruk av folkrätt i relation till genomförandet av riktat dödande och användandet av obemannade luftfarkoster i kriget mot terrorismen kan betraktas vara förenligt med doktrinen för just war theory och gällande internationell rätt. Vidare undersöker studien effekterna av det amerikanska bruket av folkrätten i relation till civilbefolkningen och den internationella humanitära rätten. Relevant lagtext och krigsetikens sedvanerättsliga principer jämförs med USA:s bruk av folkrätt för att fastställa agerandets legalitet. Vidare påvisar studien att programmet för riktat dödande inte kan anses vara förenligt med just war theory och gällande internationell lag och att bruket av drönare hamnar i konflikt med gällande internationell rätt i relation till hur de används under kriget mot terrorismen. / As a result of the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 then President George W Bush declared a war on terror. Six days later, Bush signed a directive which authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out targeted killings against predefined individuals with the purpose to prevent any future attacks from the terrorist network Al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces. In conjunction with the declaration of war president Bush initiated the American practice of so-called "drone strikes" with the intention to eliminate suspected terrorists without access to a fair trial, the practice has continued under the mandate of the Obama-administration. The aim of this study is to examine whether the US legal justification for the use of targeted killings and unmanned aerial vehicles in the war against terrorism can be regarded as compatible with the doctrine of just war theory and applicable international law. Furthermore, the study examines the effects of the US practice on international humanitarian customary law in relation to the civilian population. The U.S. justification of targeted killing is compared with international law to determine the lawfulness from a legal perspective. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the practice is not compatible with the doctrine of just war theory and applicable international law. The use of drones violates international customary law in relation to how they are used under the current conflict.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the fastest developing technologies globally. AI has recently entered warfare and thus taken a place in international law. Today the use of AI in warfare is through machine learning and autonomous weapon systems. Autonomous weapons are expected to play a decisive role in future war- fare and therefore have a major impact on both civilians and combatants. This gives rise to an examination of the role of artificial intelligence, machine learning and autonomous weapon systems in international law, specifically international humanitarian law (IHL).  The purpose and main research question of the thesis is to examine how the use of AI, machine learning and autonomous weapon systems is regulated within international law. Further the thesis examines if the regulations sufficiently can ensure the protection that is guaranteed within IHL or if additional regulation is needed. The research question is answered by examining the relevant rules in IHL, compliance with the protection stated in the principles of distinction, pro- portionality and precautions in attack and lastly by analyzing the consequences for civilians and combatants.  Conclusions that can be made is that the rules of IHL are both applicable and sufficient to, in theory, regulate autonomous weapon systems. However the weapon itself must be capable to follow IHL and in order to guarantee this ad- ditional regulation is needed on the use of autonomous weapons. The use of autonomous weapon systems does not necessarily violate the principles of dis- tinction, proportionality and precaution in attack. On the contrary, the use of autonomous weapons can possibly ensure that the principles are respected even further. This however depends on the actual capabilities of autonomous weapon systems and whether they can make the complex judgments required for each principle. It is although still of importance to ensure that the element of human control is never completely lost. The issue that keeps returning is the potential loss of human control. At all times human control must be guaranteed to ensure that the final decision always remains with a human. If humanity in warfare is lost the consequences and risks for civilians will increase. Not only is there a possibility of increase in use of violence but also an increase of indiscriminate attacks. The rules of IHL aim to protect civilians as well as combatants, and the use of this new weapon will lead to difficulties to navigate armed situations for combatants. This will increase the suffering of civilians, but also risk overriding the protection of combatants that IHL ensures.