Crowdsourced Warfare: The Risks of Civilian Technology Participation and International Law Reform

List of Key Chapter Titles

1. Introduction
2. Practical Forms of Crowdsourced Warfare
3. Legal Interpretation Controversies Regarding Civilian Targeting
4. Core Areas of Disagreement in International Armed Conflicts
5. Additional Challenges in Non-International Armed Conflicts
6. Vulnerability of Civilians in Crowdsourced Warfare
7. Rule Restructuring for Crowdsourced Warfare
8. Conclusion

Document Introduction

The rapid development of digital technology is fundamentally transforming the nature of modern warfare. Tools such as smartphones and internet platforms enable civilians to directly participate in military operations in unprecedented ways, regardless of whether they are located in conflict zones or anywhere else in the world. This new conflict model, defined as "crowdsourced warfare," provides disadvantaged parties with innovative pathways to counter stronger adversaries while also presenting severe legal and humanitarian challenges. The core question is: Will civilians participating in such actions lose their protected status under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), thereby becoming legitimate military targets?

This report systematically outlines five typical practical forms of crowdsourced warfare, including participation applications like Ukraine's e-Enemy and ePPO, Ukraine's IT volunteer hacker corps, social media recruitment and crowdfunding, open-source intelligence reporting, and Starlink satellite communication support. These cases reveal that civilians can provide direct support to armed conflicts through various means such as data uploading, cyber attacks, financial donations, and intelligence analysis, characterized by low barriers to entry, minimal geographical restrictions, and high coordination efficiency.

The report provides an in-depth analysis of the interpretative dilemmas faced by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the era of crowdsourced warfare. Regarding the definition of "Direct Participation in Hostilities" (DPH), the international community is divided into two main camps: "narrow interpretation" and "broad interpretation." The disagreements primarily focus on four core issues: positioning within the causal chain, the timeframe for targeting, the continuity of repeated participation, and the conditions for terminating participation. In the context of non-international armed conflicts, the determination of membership in organized armed groups further complicates the protection of civilians.

Based on the analysis of the aforementioned legal controversies, the report assesses the vulnerability of different types of participants in crowdsourced warfare. The research finds that applying a broad interpretation could lead to millions of civilians involved in crowdsourced warfare being classified as legitimate military targets. This not only poses a direct threat to their lives but may also endanger those around them and blur the distinction between civilians and combatants. Furthermore, these civilian participants face legal risks such as detention and prosecution, and the digital infrastructure they use may also become targets of attack.

To address these challenges, the report proposes three core reform recommendations: First, adopt a narrow interpretation approach, re-examining and adjusting the broad legal interpretations formed in the post-9/11 era. Second, strengthen state responsibility to ensure that when inviting civilians to participate in warfare, risks are fully disclosed and International Humanitarian Law is adhered to. Third, promote the reform of International Humanitarian Law by tightening the standards for civilian targeting and upholding the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants.

Based on detailed case analysis, legal text interpretation, and conflict practice assessment, this report provides an authoritative reference for understanding new forms of warfare and improving the international regulatory framework. It holds significant academic and practical value for defense researchers, policymakers, international law scholars, and geopolitical analysts.