Computational Argumentation for Military Decision-Making: A Case Study of the Dutch Airstrike on Hawija

Abstract

This study explores how the computational argumentation framework ASPIC+ supports the structuring of post-action evaluation of ethical and legal reasoning in military decision-making. The 2015 Dutch airstrike on the Iraqi city of Hawija serves as a case study. This case study is primarily examined through two detailed sources: the Sorgdrager Committee report, commissioned by the Dutch government, and the After the strike report, which provides a more humanitarian perspective on the short and long-term consequences of the airstrike. The analysis of the case study considers arguments for compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) together with arguments addressing broader questions of moral and strategic legitimacy. The results demonstrate ASPIC+’s capability in clarifying competing positions and show that decisive outcomes depend on explicit value prioritization. Moreover, the findings provide insights for the field of machine ethics and reinforce the broader objective that responsibility in AI-enabled systems must remain with humans.