Autonomous Weapons Systems Research Articles

Explainable AI in the military domain

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become nearly ubiquitous in modern society, from components of mobile applications to medical support systems, and everything in between. In societally impactful systems imbued with AI, there has been increasing concern related to opaque AI, that is, artificial intelligence where it is unclear how or why certain decisions are reached. This has led to a recent boom in research on “explainable AI” (XAI), or approaches to making AI more explainable and understandable to human users. In the military domain, numerous bodies have argued that autonomous and AI-enabled weapon systems ought not incorporate unexplainable AI, with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United States Department of Defense both explicitly including explainability as a relevant factor in the development and use of such systems. In this article, I present a cautiously critical assessment of this view, arguing that explainability will be irrelevant for many current and near-future autonomous systems in the military (which do not incorporate any AI), that it will be trivially incorporated into most military systems which do possess AI (as these generally possess simpler AI systems), and that for those systems with genuinely opaque AI, explainability will prove to be of more limited value than one might imagine. In particular, I argue that explainability, while indeed a virtue in design, is a virtue aimed primarily at designers and troubleshooters of AI-enabled systems, but is far less relevant for users and handlers actually deploying these systems. I further argue that human–machine teaming is a far more important element of responsibly using AI for military purposes, adding that explainability may undermine efforts to improve human–machine teamings by creating a prima facie sense that the AI, due to its explainability, may be utilized with little (or less) potential for mistakes. I conclude by clarifying that the arguments are not against XAI in the military, but are instead intended as a caution against over-inflating the value of XAI in this domain, or ignoring the limitations and potential pitfalls of this approach.

HUMAN DIGNITY, MORAL DAMAGE, AND KILLINGS BY AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS

The present article aims to discuss if the fact that Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) killed or injured a person generates moral damage, and if there is a presumption of moral damage, being unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove the moral suffering to be entitled to reparation from the State. First, the article defines LAWS and provides a brief perspective on moral damage in international law based on the International Law Commission´s Draft Articles on State Responsibility and scholarship. Next, it discusses if LAWS killings or injuries violate the principle of human dignity. Then it highlights international case-law from the international human rights courts on moral damage in re ipsa. The article concludes that LAWS's killings or injuries generate a relative presumption of moral damage.

A next-generation protective emblem: Cross-frequency protective options for non-combatants in the context of (fully) autonomous warfare

Abstract The protection of non-combatants in times of autonomous warfare raises the question of the timeliness of the international protective emblem. (Fully) Autonomous weapon systems are often launched from a great distance, and there may be no possibility for the operators to notice protective emblems at the point of impact; therefore, such weapon systems will need to have a way to detect protective emblems and react accordingly. In this regard, the present contribution suggests a cross-frequency protective emblem. Technical deployment is considered, as well as interpretation by methods of machine learning. Approaches are explored as to how software can recognize protective emblems under the influence of various boundary conditions. Since a new protective emblem could also be misused, methods of distribution are considered, including encryption and authentication of the received signal. Finally, ethical aspects are examined.

Regulating autonomous and AI-enabled weapon systems: the dangers of hype

Regulating autonomous and AI-enabled weapon systems: the dangers of hype

Regulating Autonomy in Civilian Drones: Towards a Spectral Approach

Civilian drones are becoming more functionally independent from human involvement which sets them on a path towards “autonomous” status. When defining “autonomy,” the European Union (EU) regulations, among other jurisdictions, employ an all-or-nothing approach, according to which a drone is either able to operate fully autonomously or not at all. This dichotomous approach disregards the various levels of drone autonomy and fails to capture the complexity of civilian drone operation. Within the EU, this has regulatory implications, such as regulatory lag, hindrance in better safety regulation, and incoherence with the Union’s regulatory approach towards Artificial Intelligence (AI). This article argues that understanding autonomy as a spectrum, rather than in a dichotomous way, would be more coherent with the technical functioning of drone and would avoid potential regulatory problems caused by the current dichotomous approach. In delineating this spectral approach, this article (1) analyses manifestations of autonomy in drone operations, (2) delineates efforts in the technical literatures and drone standardization to conceptualize “autonomy”, and (3) explores definitional attempts for autonomy made in three other technologies: self-driving cars, autonomous weapon systems, and autonomous maritime ships.

The responsibility of corporate actors involved in international crimes through autonomous weapons systems (AWS) before the international criminal court (ICC)

The use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) has led to several opposing legal opinions regarding their violations of international law. The responsibility of the state, individuals, and corporations as producers, designers, and programmers is all being taken into consideration. If the decision to kill humans without “meaningful human control” is transferred to computers, it would be hard to attribute accountability for the actions of AWS to their corporations. Consequently, this means that corporate actors will enjoy impunity in all cases. The present paper indicates that the most significant problem arising from the use of AWS is the attribution of responsibility for its violation. Corporations are not subject to liability for the legitimate use of weapons under international law. The main problem with corporate responsibility, according to article 25 (4) of the Rome Statute, is that the provision only relates to individual criminal responsibility and that the ICC shall only have jurisdiction over natural persons. Nevertheless, corporations may be held accountable under aspects of international law. The paper proposes a more positive view on artificial intelligence, raising corporations’ accountability in international law by historically linking the judging of business leaders. The article identifies aiding and abetting as well as co-perpetration as the two modes of accountability under international law potentially linked to AWS. The study also explores the main ambiguity in international law relating to corporate aiding and abetting of human rights violations by presenting the confusion on determining the standards of these 2 modes of liability before the ICC and International ad doc Tribunal. Moreover, with the new age of war heavily dependent on AI and AWS, one cannot easily and precisely ascertain who must be held accountable for war crimes because of the unanticipated facts in decision-making combined with the aiding or abetting of violations of international law. International law prioritizes the goal of ending impunity for the individual and largely neglects the need to achieve the same goal for corporate complicity. In sum, progress to regulate the use of AWS by corporate actors could be enormously helpful to the cause of ending impunity.

Ensuring Lawful Use of Autonomous Weapons

Abstract The use of autonomous weapons systems (‘aws’) is the source of extensive discussions within the international legal community and beyond. After years of discussing definitions, the discourse is slowly moving on to discuss aws in light of existing law of armed conflict (‘loac’) rules. This article aims to support these discussions by providing a military legal perspective. aws offers great potential benefits to both soldiers and civilians, and control mechanisms already in place for military operations may be employed to define when and how aws can lawfully be used. aws can reduce the exposure of soldiers to dull, dirty and dangerous environments and the risk of incidental civilian harm. To exploit these potentials and ensure legality, regulators need to understand how military forces employ and control the use of force to support their operations, and military planners and decision-makers need to understand the limits of and possibilities within loac.

Autonomous Weapon Systems and The Humanitarian Principle of Distinction

Autonomous Weapon Systems and The Humanitarian Principle of Distinction

Assessing the Legality of Autonomous Weapon Systems: An In-depth Examination of International Humanitarian Law Principles

The use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) to select targets and attack them without human intervention poses a real legal dilemma. What heralds the urgency of the issue is the emergence of some unofficial reports talking about AWS entering the battlefield in recent armed conflicts. Previous literature has been inconclusive on the legitimacy of AWS. This is what prompted us to do this research, which deserves to be investigated in more depth to help reach an international consensus within the international humanitarian law (IHL) framework. The article uses a combination of both doctrinal and non-doctrinal methodology to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. The methodology focuses on analyzing AWS through the perspective of IHL principles because it is the most related law by which the legitimacy of AWS can be assessed. The data collected were secondary and analyzed using quantitative data analysis to shed light on the contradiction between public sentiment and the actual trajectory of AWS development. The results show that military necessity and humanity are two concepts inherent in the true principles of IHL that do not accept measurement or compromise. The article concludes that although artificial intelligence (AI) has not yet reached a threshold that allows reliable deployment of AWS, However, the acceleration of its development indicates that AWS will be able to comply with true IHL principles in the near future.

Death by remote control: Drone warfare in Afghanistan, Ukraine and beyond

This article examines the use of military drones over the past 20 years. It includes the following: (1) a critical review of how drone warfare in the US‐led ‘war on terror’ affected drone crews and those ‘living under drones’; (2) an analysis of how drone warfare in Ukraine and Russia differs from previous deployments of the technology; and (3) a careful assessment of what lies ahead, as national governments and technology firms race to develop AI‐enabled drones and autonomous weapons systems on a broad scale.

Front and Back Covers, Volume 40, Number 1. February 2024

Front and back cover caption, volume 40 issue 1EYE IN THE SKY: ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE DRONE ERAA civilian contractor launches a V‐BAT surveillance and reconnaissance drone from the USS Rushmore in the Philippine Sea. Manufactured by the California‐based startup Shield AI, the V‐BAT takes off vertically and operates autonomously without operator guidance or GPS (global positioning system). Its ‘swarming’ capability allows for potential combat use.Drones have had a profound impact in theatres of war for decades, causing lethal outcomes for combatants and non‐combatants alike. The US‐led ‘war on terror’ in regions like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen has seen drone strikes causing tens of thousands of deaths, including many civilians. Beyond the direct, destructive impact, American drone pilots report significant mental health issues like anxiety, depression and PTSD due to the nature of remote‐controlled warfare.Recent conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have seen an expansion in the types of drones used, ranging from inexpensive commercial drones with explosives to advanced armed drones. While traditionally operated remotely, there is an increasing shift towards autonomous functioning.This escalation in drone warfare technology, particularly the development of lethal autonomous weapon systems, has led to warnings of a global AI arms race involving powers like the US, China and Russia. The concept of ‘sensor‐to‐shooter’ machine learning infrastructures by military planners underscores the ethical, moral and sociopolitical dilemmas in a world increasingly leaning towards algorithmic warfare.In this issue, Roberto González argues that anthropologists need to illuminate how drone warfare impacts societies, the effects on both operators and targeted populations and the broader sociopolitical implications of autonomous weapons. This critical, publicly oriented anthropological perspective is essential to navigating the complex interplay of technology, ethics and human values in modern warfare, offering a deeper understanding of the societal impacts of these rapidly evolving military technologies.UNRAVELLING ‘REAL’ KINSHIPThis thought‐provoking Illustration shows the contrast between the idealized concept of unilineal descent and the intricate realities of kinship in everyday life. The left side of the image displays a simplified, stylized, unilineal family tree. With its clear, vertical lines, this depiction symbolizes kinship as a straightforward, linear progression. It embodies an idealized perspective on lineage, where relationships are traced through a single ancestral line, mirroring classical kinship theory.Conversely, the right side of the image presents a more complex and interwoven family tree. This part challenges the simplistic notions of unilineal descent, revealing kinship's rich, multifaceted nature. Here, the interconnected lines represent a spectrum of relationships extending beyond mere descent, encompassing marriage, adoption, communal ties and other social bonds. These aspects are frequently marginalized in conventional kinship models but, as anthropologists know, they are essential to understanding the full scope of human connections.Sabina Cveček's insightful analysis in this issue shows how archaeologists’ interpretation of unilineal kinship systems tend to be incomplete. Her work underscores the disparity between theoretical models and the nuanced realities of kinship, prompting a call for a more dynamic interpretation of kinship as a socially constructed and evolving network. This illustration invites introspection on the diversity and complexity of kinship and advocates a more inclusive and holistic approach to studying human relationships.Cveček argues that the dichotomy between idealized models and actual kinship dynamics is a recurring theme in anthropological literature. Anthropology remains crucial in understanding the depths and dimensions of kinship systems, even in today's era of scientific advancements like ancient DNA analysis.

Who Acts When Autonomous Weapons Strike?

Abstract This essay examines the theories according to which ‘actions’ carried out by autonomous weapon systems enabled by strong artificial intelligence in detecting, tracking and engaging with the target (‘intelligent AWS’) may be seen as an ‘act’ of the weapon system for the purpose of legal responsibility. The essay focuses on the material act required for the commission of war crimes related to prohibited attacks in warfare. After briefly presenting the various conceptions of the act as an essential component of the material element of criminal offences, it argues that the material act of war crimes related to prohibited attacks is invariably carried out by the user of an ‘intelligent AWS’. This also holds true in the case of so-called ‘unintended engagements’ during the course of a military attack carried out with an intelligent AWS. The essay moves on to examine the question of whether, in the case of the use of intelligent AWS by the armed forces of a state, the ‘actions’ of intelligent AWS — including those not intended by the user — are attributable to the state. It demonstrates that under a correct understanding of the concept of ‘act of state’ for the purpose of attributing state responsibility under international law, such attribution is unquestionable. It underlines that, suggesting otherwise, would bring to a breaking point the possibility of establishing violations by states of international humanitarian law in the conduct of hostilities.

Emergent Normativity: Communities of Practice, Technology, and Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems

Abstract Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) are the subject of considerable international debate turning around the extent to which humans remain in control over using force. But what is precisely at stake is less clear as stakeholders have different perspectives on the technologies that animate LAWS. Such differences matter because they shape the substance of the debate, which regulatory options are put on the table, and also normativity on LAWS in the sense of understandings of appropriateness. To understand this process, I draw on practice theories, science and technology studies (STS), and critical norm research. I argue that a constellation of communities of practice (CoPs) shapes the public debate about LAWS and focus on three of these CoPs: diplomats, weapon manufacturers, and journalists. Actors in these CoPs discursively perform practices of boundary-work, in the STS sense, to shape understandings of technologies at the heart of LAWS: automation, autonomy, and AI. I analyze these dynamics empirically in two steps: first, by offering a general-level analysis of practices of boundary-work performed by diplomats at the Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS from 2017 to 2022; and second, through examining such practices performed by weapon manufacturers and journalists in relation to the use of loitering munitions, a particular type of LAWS, in the Second Libyan Civil War (2014–2020).

Epistemology in AI (Transdisciplinary AI)

A critical look at the evolution of AI strongly shows a sustained but stealth race to replace humans with AI. Early scientific literature and discourse on AI for some reasons (either to allow AI gain entry and acceptability in mainstream scientific and technological arena) vehemently deny this "human replacement agenda". This thinking pattern unknowingly shaped current scientific literature, discourse, general understanding of what AI is and its development and applicability (a reductionist thinking). This limits our understanding in both the beneficial and destructive capabilities of AI. But when considering a TD assessment on the developmental dynamic of AI, one would comfortably say and must be bold to admit, that indeed AI intends replacing humans and is on course for fulfilling this.
 
 We see this AI human replacement agenda in intensified R&D efforts dedicated to developing powerful AI system of systems which massively augment human reasoning, most times far better. The inexhaustible list includes the AI replacement of formerly considered human-centric jobs, advanced autonomous weapon systems, killer robots and AI in warfare, intelligent facial recognition, biometric monitoring, integrating AI on biological, nuclear and space-based weapons systems, etc. If this is the direction AI is taking, then a secondary aim would surely arrive at integrating epistemology in AI or "grant spirits" for AI systems. This is because a distinctive characteristic of a human is his spirit and one cannot replace humans with AI without creating proportionate or appropriate spirits for the AI systems. Sooner or later our AI systems would have epistemological functions and possess spirits. The place of the soul for such AI systems would be attained as well. If human knowledge, beliefs, voices, clips and laws can be preserved long after they are gone as is possible in smart digital technologies, then spirit-based AI would indeed cause these humans to live forever. If the feat of a spirit enamored AI is near, then why worry? Indeed when considering that humans possess good and bad spirits (from the epistemology of rational and irrational inertia) then these AI systems would of course have good or bad spirits and be bad or good AI.
 
 Would integrating a spirit into a rule-based or machine learning algorithmic structure of an AI system have benefits? Yes!, profound benefits too. A spirit-based AI would of course make possible the "possession of feelings" by AI systems, a feat unattainable in both algorithmic, operational and inferential basis of AI systems today. This inability of AI systems to have feelings has continued to remain a major setback in the acceptability (indeed trust) and utilization of AI. As we agree that the spirit in AI is possible, then overlooking efforts aimed at making this possible or allowing AI to attain this level unhindered (admitting dangers of human involvement in AI) could pose a dangerous threat which can become highly destructive to mankind. This calls for critical supervision (TD-based ethical policing) and the accompanying of the evolution, development and applicability of AI hence venerating the need for human mediation in AI both as a major TD research subject and applicable function.
 
 A discussion would be made on my approach which considers the synergy of critical systems heuristics (CSH) and systems engineering (Transdisciplinary Systems Engineering) to create "Transdisciplinary AI" which would formulate methods of integrating "human" epistemology in expert systems. Human epistemology is emphasized because by the maturity of this future nature of AI, there would be terms known as "AI or machine epistemology" or "AI or machine spirits". The investigation begins with creating expert systems (knowledge-based systems) with these functions with plans of moving into robotics and other machine learning arena. Finally, to move the needle on what is considered permissible epistemology or permissible spirit of/in AI is a critical component of the study of human mediation and AI which must be given critical attention. This would be discussed as well.

Can Autonomous Weapon Systems be Seized? Interactions with the Law of Prize and War Booty

Abstract The military has often been used as a proving ground for advances in technology. With the advent of machine learning, algorithms and artificial intelligence, there has been a slew of scholarship around the legal and ethical challenges of applying those technologies to the military. Nowhere has the debate been fiercer than in examining whether international law is resilient enough to impose individual and State responsibility for the misuse of these autonomous weapon systems (AWSs). However, by introducing increasing levels of electronic and digital components into weapon systems, States are also introducing opportunities for adversaries to hack, suborn or take over AWSs in a manner unthinkable compared to conventional weaponry. Yet, no academic discussion has considered how the law of prize and war booty might apply to AWSs that are captured in such a way. This article seeks to address this gap.

Supporting Ethical Decision-Making for Lethal Autonomous Weapons

ABSTRACT This article describes a new and innovative methodology for calibrating trust in ethical actions by Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS). For the foreseeable future, LAWS will require human operators for mission planning, decision-making, and supervisory control; yet humans lack the cognitive bandwidth and processing speed to make prompt, real-time ethical decisions. As a result, trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be required to support ethical decision-making. We use a Bayesian ethical decision model for: (1) human setting of ethical preferences and thresholds in accordance with Laws of War and tactical criteria; and (2) highlighting the factors that contribute to strike/no-strike recommendations for human evaluation. The model can perform an ethical analysis, provide a quantitative ethical strike/no-strike score, and recommend actions to reduce decision uncertainty. In this article, we describe successful initial evaluation trials of the Bayesian model and of a human interface for interaction with the model. Our Bayesian ethical decision model has an immediate application in wargames; the model can also be used to train operators in understanding the principles and key factors relevant to ethical decision-making; and it may eventually be used in actual military operations employing LAWS.

Autonomous drone swarms and the contested imaginaries of artificial intelligence

AI-based, autonomous weapon systems (AWS) have the potential of weapons of mass destruction and thereby massively add to the intensifying dialectic of fear between ground and space and the pervasive mass human vulnerability of being tracked and targeted from above. Nevertheless, the dangerous effects of the proliferation of AWS have not been and still are not widely acknowledged. On the one hand, the capabilities and effects of AWS are downplayed by the military and the arms industry staging these systems as precise and clean. Recently, it is also argued that they can be built on the basis of a ‘responsible’ or ‘trustworthy’ artificial intelligence (AI). On the other hand, inadequate sociotechnical imaginaries of AI as a conscious, evil super-intelligence circulated by Hollywood blockbuster films such as 'Terminator' or 'Ex Machina' dominate the public discourse. Their massive overstatement of the power of the technology and also their focus on often irrelevant imaginaries such as the ‘Terminator’ hinders a realistic understanding of the AI’s capabilities. Against this background, arms control advocates develop new imaginaries to show the loss of ‘meaningful human control’ (Sharkey 2016) and its problematic consequences. In October 2023, the deployment of autonomous military in the battlefield has already been officially confirmed by an Ukrainian drone company (Hambling 2023).

A Risk-Based Regulatory Approach to Autonomous Weapon Systems

A Risk-Based Regulatory Approach to Autonomous Weapon Systems

Artificially Armed: The Legal Implications and Limitations of AI-enabled Autonomous Weapons Systems on International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law

Artificially Armed: The Legal Implications and Limitations of AI-enabled Autonomous Weapons Systems on International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law

Exploring the Interplay of Jus Cogens and Human Rights Law in the Deployment of Autonomous Weapon Systems

Exploring the Interplay of Jus Cogens and Human Rights Law in the Deployment of Autonomous Weapon Systems