Leveraging autonomous weapon systems: realism and humanitarianism in modern warfare

Abstract

Autonomous weapon systems (AWS) are considered particularly dangerous because they could make war somewhat independent of humans. Should that be the case-some argue-there would be neither rules nor empathy or compassion on the battlefield, and we would no longer know who was responsible for the crimes committed. For these reasons, a vast movement committed to banning such weapons emerged. Sharing the goal of greater compliance with the humanitarian law and-at the same time-embracing a realist conception of relations between groups and states, in this article we argue in favor of the idea that the technological development of AWS, in particular the possibility of observing and directing any warfare action remotely, opens new opportunities for the regulation of military actions. We also claim that a ban of such weapons is likely to be not only ineffective but also factually unrealistic; so, we propose to encourage research on AWS with the goal of embedding in them strict constraints of use. The idea is that the process will be triggering more humane conflicts in compliance with international law. To this extent, we suggest the establishment of ‘war juries’ composed of representative citizens, who would monitor all military actions of their country and decide how and when to limit them.