In late 1944, German forces under the command of Colonel General Lothar Rendulic devastated Finnmark, Norway’s northern- and easternmost county that adjoins Russia. Rendulic was tried before a Nuremberg-based US military tribunal for this incident. He asserted that he honestly, albeit erroneously in hindsight, believed that a Soviet attack was imminent, and that scorching earth was the only effective and proportionate policy to hinder enemy advances. The judges acquitted him, noting their obligation to approach the situation “as it appeared to the defendant at the time”. This ruling, issued in the 1948 case known as Hostage, laid the foundation for the so-called “Rendulic Rule”, a key principle of modern customary international humanitarian law.

​

Three quarters of a century later, the idea that commanders making difficult decisions in good faith ought to be protected from wholesale retrospection remains intuitively sound. And yet unresolved questions surrounding the actual state of Rendulic’s knowledge, devastation’s suitability as a means to counter his perceived threat, and the scale of the property destruction and population displacement carried out in view of their stated purpose, linger. Nor do we clearly understand the Rendulic Rule’s emergence, content and significance under international humanitarian law, or how it relates to the reasonable commander test and mistake of fact as a defence plea in international criminal law.

​

Today’s operational environment surrounding combat decisions has become even more complex. Controversial military action often reverberates far beyond its immediate context. The decision’s motives and purposes, the quality and quantity of the information available as well as the honesty of its assessment, the fitness of the action chosen vis-à-vis the aim sought, the balancing of competing interests such as force protection and civilian safety, and the like, are bound to receive detailed scrutiny from numerous angles as a result. The advent of artificial intelligence, deep learning and unprecedented computing power in modern combat decision-making will only complicate the matter further.

​

At this conference, a multidisciplinary team of eminent historians, international lawyers, strategic thinkers and military ethicists offers a definitive account of Finnmark’s devastation, Rendulic’s acquittal, and the no second-guessing rule’s strategic, legal and ethical significance in the age of increasing autonomy in combat decision-making. What does it mean for the relevant information to be reasonably available to the decision-maker – human or otherwise? What counts as its honest assessment, and when is accountability engaged? These are among the matters our speakers address as we approach Hostage’s 75th anniversary in 2023.

News

12:00-12:10

Introduction

Speaker

Nobuo Hayashi, Swedish Defence University

12:10-13:30

Session I
Lothar Rendulic and the Devastation of Finnmark

Moderator

Marianne Neerland Soleim, UiT Arctic University of Norway

Speakers

Military Strategies and Campaigns in Northern Norway in 1944

Gunnar Åselius, Swedish Defence University

A Soviet Advance Across Finnmark?

Sven G. Holtsmark, Norwegian Institute of Defence Studies

​

Devastation's Inception, Planning and Execution

Fredrik Fagertun, UiT Arctic University of Norway

13:40-15:00

Session II

Hostage and the Rendulic Rule

Moderator

Emiliano J. Buis, University of Buenos Aires

​

Speakers

Inclusion of Finnmark's Devastation Charge against Rendulic

Stian Bones, UiT Arctic University of Norway

​

Genesis, Content and Significance of the Rendulic Rule under IHL

Sean Watts, US Military Academy

​

Reasonable Commander Test and Mistake of Fact under ICL

Yasmin Naqvi, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

15:10-16:40

Session III
Honest Errors and Combat Decision-Making in Modern Warfare

Moderator

Bård Mæland, VID Specialized University

​

Speakers

Information Revolution and 21st-Century Warfare

Tae-Hoon Kim, Swedish Defence University

​

Intelligent and Autonomous Technologies in Combat Decision-Making

Berenice Boutin, Asser Institute

​

Advent of Digitisation and the Reasonable Commander as a Legal Archetype

Valentin Jeutner, Lund University

​

Honest Error and Accountability in the Age of Combat Decision Autonomy

Shannon E. French, Case Western Reserve University (TBC)

​

16:50-17:00

Conclusion and the Way Forward

Speaker

Carola Lingaas, VID Specialized University

Speakers and Moderators