Growing Autonomy and the Politics of Moral Responsibility for Military Action

Ensuring Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems Comply with International Humanitarian Law

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) are being developed by major countries as a core value of future war. The international community is actively discussing the legal issues and regulatory methods of LAWS at the Group of Government Experts (GGE) meetings hosted by the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The main purpose of the first part of this paper is to compare and analyze countries’ positions on each issue at the above GGE. At the GGE, there are contrasting stances between those supporting and opposing strict regulations on LAWS. A consensus was not reached on the definition of LAWS and the necessity to create a new treaty that regulates LAWS. However, most countries and NGOs are trying to find a methodology for autonomous weapons to comply with international humanitarian law through “human elements.” It is difficult to expect the creation of a new treaty, so the recent GGE has emphasized the solution through Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Based on the discussions at the GGE, the second part of this paper will examine the proper policy direction that South Korea can set for LAWS. The issues and trends discussed in the GGE need to be fully understood by government policy makers and defense industry experts. In addition, in order to clarify the implementation of Article 36, it is possible to use a method to prepare regulations in domestic laws or codes of conduct to test compliance with international laws on new weapons including LAWS. As to whether or not to create the new treaty, diplomatic channels can carefully consider options for participating in Europeanled political declarations. Finally, an accurate understanding of the U.S. position on LAWS regulations is needed, and government-led research and development can play an important role in promoting international solidarity among allies.

This article examines a subset of multilateral forums dealing with security problems posed by digital technologies, such as cyber warfare, cyber crime and lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS).1 It identifies structural issues that make it difficult for multilateral forums to discuss fast-moving digital issues and respond in time with the required norms and policy measures. Based on this problem analysis, and the recent experience of regulating cyber conflict and LAWS through Groups of Governmental Experts, the article proposes a schema for multilateral governance of digital technologies in armed conflict. The schema includes a heuristic for understanding human–machine interaction in order to operationalize accountability with international humanitarian law principles and international law applicable to armed conflict in the digital age. The article concludes with specific suggestions for advancing work in multilateral forums dealing with cyber weapons and lethal autonomy.

The aim of present article is to approach the relatively new field of lethal autonomous robots and weapon systems (LARs or LAWS) from the perspective of international law with a focus on human rights compliance. Initially, the topic became the subject of public awareness and discussions in 2009 and soon acquired both interest and criticism. The development of such weapon systems rises at the same time legal, moral, practical and ethical questions. In the absence of specific sui generis legal provisions regarding them, the article shall try to evaluate to what extent such concepts find legal and moral justification by the existing provisions of humanitarian law. In any case, as LAWS provide for important benefits, they should be considered under serious legal safeguard due to their impact on human rights, out-of-combat units and civilian population. All such benefits must be guided by ethical principles and legal provisions, either those already applied or new ones that would better fit this specific field.

This paper aims to explore the legal issues on the use of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). This study is based on the recent research trend in Japan regarding studying the relationships between the international humanitarian law and the international law of human rights. The paper seeks to apply the integration theory to the relationship of both laws. As a result, this idea can pave the way for suppressing the usage of LAWS in future armed conflicts. Since the use of LAWS may lead to immense injury to fundamental human rights, it is necessary to adopt the integration theory to prevent futile, unnecessary and inhumane damage. In addition, when considering the components of a nanomachine, the most important component is the autonomous non-metallic system of the machine. Although there are some international conventions that are applicable to this system, some interpretive problems still exist. This situation shows that international law does not have to be divided into international human rights law and international humanitarian law. At the same time, strictly speaking, there is no international law that governs the nonmetallic system of a nanomachine at the present.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has enriched the lives of people around the globe. However, the emergence of AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has become a significant concern for the international community. LAWS are computer-based weapon systems capable of completing their missions, including identifying and engaging targets without direct human intervention. The use of such weapons poses significant challenges to compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law. Scholars have extensively examined LAWS in the context of humanitarian law; however, their implications for human rights warrant further discussion. Against this backdrop, this paper analyzes the human rights challenges posed by LAWS under international law. It argues that using LAWS in warfare and domestic law enforcement operations could violate human rights, such as the rights to life, human dignity, and remedy, among others. Thus, it calls for a prohibition of the use of killer robots against humans.

INTRODUCTION. This research paper presents the authors view on the essence of the problems of modern international law regulation of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) and international arms circulation. The authors dwell upon various aspects of new technologies in the field of creating LAWS, outline the prospects for the solution of the current challenges, as well as give a legal assessment of the legality of new types of weapons, methods and means of warfare from the perspective of contemporary international law. The system and mechanisms of international law regulation of the military purpose products circulation are also analyzed in this scientific work.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The subject of this study comprises international treaties, international customs, general principles of international law and national legislation of states. The study also includes the analysis of international acts of different nature, reports and other documents of international organizations, national authorities, scientific and educationalliterature. The methodological basis of this study is a wide range of research methods, namely: formal-legal, formal-logical, comparative-legal and historical-legal. In addition, the researchers apply system, structural and functional methods, as well as methods of analysis and generalization.RESEARCH RESULTS. The result of the study is the conclusion about the perspectives of developing auniversal definition of LAWS, as well as a common approach to understanding their characteristics and parameters of human control, and also about the advantages of LAWS in the course of military operations and solving national security problems of states, primarily in terms of compliance with IHL rules, which all military personnel are required to strictly observe. It is also necessary to take into account the crucial role of the issues of secrecy and national security, while Article 36 of Additional Protocol I does not contain criteria for distinguishing new types of weapons from other types of weapons, for example, from those that have undergone multi-stage modernization. It can be stated that at present there are only separate and insuffi ently effective mechanisms of international law regulation due to their voluntary basis. Therefore, national export control mechanisms are of paramount importance for the process of regulating the circulation of military purpose products, which is an essential element of national sovereignty.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The authors come to the following conclusions: the existing provisions of IHL are fully applicable to LAWS; responsibility for the use of LAWS should be borne by the person who manages the robotic complex or «programs» and gives the order to use LAWS, but the specific forms and methods of human control should remain at the discretion of states; Article 36 of Additional Protocol I provides extremely limited opportunities to prevent the creation of new weapons systems, does not require any reporting and control format; research and development of new types ofweapons are secret, and the acquisition or adoption of obviously or presumably indiscriminate weapons systems are not a violation, but rather a preparation for a violation or an activity of a controversial nature; further improvement of the international law regulation of arms circulation should be developed by creating mandatory universal mechanisms of international law regulation that would prevent the uncontrolled circulation and illegal distribution of weapons, including their sale to terrorists.

Today much has already been written about Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics and autonomous systems. In particular the more and more prevalent autonomous vehicles, i.e. cars, trucks, trains and to a lesser extent aeroplanes.This article looks at an emerging technology that has a fundamental impact on our society, namely the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) – weaponized AI - as used by the armed forces. It specifically approaches the questions around how laws and policy for this specific form of emerging technology - the military application of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) could be developed. The article focuses on how potential solution(s) may be found rather than on the well-established issues. Currently, there are three main streams in the debate around how to deal with LAWS; the ‘total ban’, the ‘wait and see’ and ‘the ‘pre-emptive legislation’ path. The recent increase in the development of LAWS has led to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) taking a strong stance against ‘killer robots’ promoting a total ban. This causes its own legal issues already in the first stage, the definition of autonomous weapons, which is inconsistent but often refers to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) 3-step listing – human-in/on/out-of the loop. However, the fact remains that the LAWS are already in existence and continues to be developed. This raises the question of how to deal with them. From a civilian perspective, the initial legal issue has been focusing on liability in relation to accidents. On the military side, international legislation has been and still is, through a series of treaties between states, striving to regulate the behaviour of troops on the fields of armed conflict. These treaties, at times referred to as Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and at times as International Humanitarian Law (IHL) share four (4) fundamental core principles – distinction, proportionality, humanity and military necessity. With LAWS being an unavoidable fact in today’s field of armed conflict and rules governing troop behaviour existing in the form of international treaties, what is the next step? This article will look to present a short description of each debate stream utilizing relevant literature for the subject matter including a selection of arguments raised by prominent authors in the field of AWS and international law. The question for this article is: How do we achieve AWS/AI programming which adheres to the LOAC/IHL’s intentions of the ‘core principles of distinction, proportionality, humanity and military necessity?

The continuous growth of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities is poised to transform human lives across various sectors, including health care, agriculture, and scientific research. Nevertheless, certain applications of AI, particularly the development of AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), remain highly contentious due to concerns about whether such weapon systems would comply with international law, including international humanitarian law. LAWS, colloquially known as “killer robots,” have emerged at the forefront of contemporary weapons technology and are considered the “third revolution” in warfare, after the invention of gunpowder and nuclear weapons. In the absence of a regulatory framework, the advancement of sophisticated LAWS presents a significant threat to international peace and security. These systems, capable of independently conducting missions, selecting targets, and applying force, are susceptible to errors and miscalculations that could lead to unforeseen and potentially catastrophic consequences. Such errors might trigger dangerous escalations or unintended conflicts due to false alarms or accidents. Additionally, an AI arms race might push states to overlook ethical, legal, and security considerations in their effort to accelerate advancements and surpass their adversaries. In essence, the rapid incorporation of AI into modern military operations presents a multifaceted set of challenges for policy makers, legal experts, scientists, ethicists, military strategists, and the world at large. Against this backdrop, the article first assesses the compatibility of LAWS with international humanitarian law, then examines their impact on international peace and security, and finally analyzes the potential implications of LAWS for the future of peace and security in the Global South.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) – though in nascent stages – remains highly contentious due to the undefined extent of human oversight over lethal action and invites closer examination. The lens of scrutiny is, however, clouded by a myriad of competing narratives and imaginaries, with the most prominent example being that of ‘ethical’ LAWS to wage sanitized war purified of human fallibility. This is an illusionary bid, at odds with limitations of contemporary AI and complexities of modern warfare yet employed prominently by those advantaged by LAWS in resisting regulatory efforts. Consequently, it is a focal point of critique by growing interdisciplinary scholarship, which also underscores the need for counter-narratives – which are conspicuously lacking – in advancing the discussion. I propose rectifying this by critically engaging with the ‘ethical’ LAWS imaginary using design fiction to question the ability of LAWS to wage a virtuous war. I construct a speculative narrative in which I illustrate that LAWS’s decision-making – even when constrained by international humanitarian law (IHL) – can have ethically objectionable consequences. Thus, it delegitimates the ‘ethical’ LAWS imaginary, whose critique would benefit from further use of design fiction and other narrative methodologies.

Assessing the Sense and Scope of Autonomyy in Emerging Military Weapon Systems

The Lawful Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems for Targeted Strikes (Part 3): Evaluating the Outer Limits

This paper analyzes the excessive epistemic narrowing of debate about lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), and specifically the concept of meaningful human control, which has emerged as central to regulatory debates in both the scholarly literature and policy fora. Through reviewing work drawing on international relations, security studies, international law and ethics, and technology policy, I argue all share a common epistemological position. This draws on a philosophical and analytical tradition that is Western and modernist, and places a “meaningful human” at the center of debates over controlling LAWS who reflects archetypes associated with a Western, rational, white, male. This epistemological location, I argue, excludes epistemological perspectives relevant to communities who both are most likely to experience LAWS, because they live in areas where deployment is most likely, and have the greatest experience of the effects of key LAWS precursors, such as unmanned aerial vehicles. Drawing on insights from decolonial approaches, I establish a research agenda that challenges this epistemological closure and looks to relocate debates about meaningful human control over LAWS in research that makes space for far more diverse perspectives on a crucial issue that may shape humankind's common future.

This paper examines the societal implications of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). The Philippines’ position in its policy on LAWS is to support a specific ban on fully autonomous weapons systems with regulated oversight of human-supervised and semi-autonomous systems. This decision balances adherence to international humanitarian law and ethical military technology use, ensuring human involvement in critical warfare decisions and minimizing unintended harm. The policy enables the Philippines to utilize technological advancements in defense responsibly, which is in line with ethical standards and international law. Influenced by the insights of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, it harmonizes its diplomatic and military considerations, upholding humanitarian and legal standards while addressing strategic military needs. Lastly, it provides policy recommendations for regulating LAWS to prevent the proliferation of such technologies that could destabilize global peace and security.

In addition to its successful mobilization in stigmatization and norm‐setting processes on anti‐personnel landmines and cluster munitions, the principle of distinction as enshrined in International Humanitarian Law also figures prominently in the debate on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). Proponents of a ban on LAWS frame these as indiscriminate, that is, unable to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and thus as inherently unlawful. The flip side of this particular legal argument is, however, that LAWS become acceptable when considered capable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians. We thus argue, first, that this particular legal basis for the call for a ban on LAWS might be rendered obsolete by technological progress increasing discriminatory weapon capabilities. Second, we argue that the argument is normatively troubling as it suggests that, as long as civilians remain unharmed, attacking combatants with LAWS is acceptable. Consequently, we find that the legal principle of distinction is not the overall strongest argument to mobilize when trying to stigmatize and ban LAWS. A more fundamental, ethical argument within the debate about LAWS – and one less susceptible to ‘technological fixes’ – should be emphasized instead, namely that life and death decisions on the battlefield should always and in principle be made by humans only.