Distinguishing a glitch from a crime requires looking past the label of a "targeting error." Law relies on intent and precaution rather than just the final outcome. When a missile hits a hospital, lawyers don't just ask if the GPS failed. They ask why the strike was launched in the first place. Did the commander verify the target? Did they take steps to minimize civilian harm? If a military ignores clear intelligence suggesting a civilian presence, a technical failure becomes a war crime under the principle of proportionality.
Investigators focus on the chain of command and the data available before the button was pressed. A genuine technical failure happens despite rigorous adherence to protocols. In contrast, a crime often hides behind a veil of incompetence or negligence. We look for patterns. One faulty sensor is a malfunction. A pattern of "errors" hitting only civilian infrastructure suggests a deliberate policy.
Ultimately, accountability rests on the standard of reasonable care. If a state uses precision weapons but fails to conduct proper reconnaissance, they cannot hide behind a software bug. The law demands active verification, not just the assumption that technology will work perfectly.
