Autonomous Weapons Research Articles

The “Trolley Problem” in Fully Automated AI-Driven Media: A Challenge Beyond Autonomous Driving

ABSTRACT The rapid progress of artificial intelligence (AI) has resulted in its integration into various stages of the media process, including information gathering, processing, and distribution. This integration has raised the possibility of AI dominating the media industry, leading to an era of “autonomous driving” within AI-driven media systems. Similar to the ethical dilemma known as the “trolley problem” (TP) in autonomous driving, a comparable problem arises in AI automated media. This study examines the emergence of the new TP in fully automated AI-driven media (FAAIM), recognizing the complexity of this problem given the nature of media content and its societal impact. To address this complexity, we propose the adoption of the theory of “meaningful human control,” originally developed to address responsibility in the governance of lethal autonomous weapons systems, as a framework for governing FAAIM. By ensuring that humans can be held responsible for the operations of FAAIM, this paper aims to proactively confront the ethical challenges arising from FAAIM, identify potential solutions, and guide future research in media ethics.

Violation of the Airspace of Countries by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Drones) from the Perspective of International Law

Objective: to illustrate the challenges to international law and the shortcomings of current regulation caused by the rapid development of drone technology, by the example of using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) in airspace.Methods: the study is based primarily on a set of methods for interpreting the provisions of international law, which allow analyzing the provisions in the field of using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). Results: based on international air law and humanitarian law, the article examines the issues of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) using airspace. The main sources of law in this area are analyzed, including the provisions of international air law, especially the Paris, Madrid, Havana and Chicago Conventions. An attempt is made to answer the questions arising from the development of unmanned technologies as to which rules of international law apply to their use and whether existing international law is capable of responding effectively to them. The article shows the current understanding of the legal status of airspace over the territory of a state. The author puts forward the question whether the sphere of unmanned aerial vehicles, automatic and autonomous weapons, which combines scientific and military achievements with new technologies, is exceptional. In this regard, the problem of using unmanned aerial vehicles as a universal weapon in international conflicts is touched upon. A conclusion is made that the use of intelligent, guided and robotic weapons capable of automatic decision-making, such as drones, requires the revision of existing conventions or the establishment of new legal standards for these weapons. It is proposed to consider such drones as military aircraft of a special type.Scientific novelty: international legal responsibility of states for the military use of drones has not received an unambiguous assessment in the doctrine. However, much in this issue depends on the legal interpretation of the most important international legal categories. Further development of this issue is directly related to the issues of international responsibility and the concept of state sovereignty over airspace.Practical significance: the development of unmanned aviation at the present stage demonstrates the imperfection of the existing legal framework, which is designed to regulate these relations. With regard to the study of the global trend in the current international law, the identification of the shortcomings in the provisions of the latter is important primarily for their further modernization, taking into account modern scientific achievements and the development of the concept of a state sovereignty over its airspace.

Ensuring Compliance of Autonomous Weapons System (AWS) with IHL: Navigating Legal Constraints and Optimization Challenges

This article, titled "Ensuring Compliance of Autonomous Weapons System (AWS) with IHL: Navigating Legal Constraints and Optimization Challenges," explores the intersection of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). With the rise of AWS in modern warfare, ensuring their compliance with IHL is crucial. The article addresses key questions: What legal constraints does IHL impose on AWS? What optimization challenges must be overcome to ensure compliance? How can policymakers and military developers navigate these issues? The article analyzes documents, ICRC Comments, Reports and existing literature using a qualitative, library-based research methodology. Findings reveal significant legal constraints related to accountability, proportionality, and distinction, alongside technical and ethical optimization challenges. The article concludes with recommendations for robust human oversight and clear legal frameworks to ensure AWS compliance with IHL, contributing valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on AWS regulation

Autonomous Weapon Systems and Acting for the Right Reasons

Autonomous Weapon Systems and Acting for the Right Reasons

Operating itself safely: merging the concepts of ‘safe to operate’ and ‘operate safely’ for lethal autonomous weapons systems containing artificial intelligence

ABSTRACT The Ministry of Defence, specifically the Royal Navy, uses the ‘Duty Holder Structure’ to manage how it complies with deviations to maritime laws and health and safety regulations where military necessity requires it. The output statements ensuring compliance are ‘safe to operate’ certification for all platforms and equipment, and the ‘operate safely’ declaration for people who are suitably trained within the organisation. Together this forms the Safety Case. Consider a handgun; the weapon has calibration, design and maintenance certification to prove it is safe to operate, and the soldier is trained to be qualified competent to make predictable judgement calls on how and when to pull the trigger (operate safely). Picture those statements as separate circles drawn on a Venn diagram. As levels of autonomy and complexity are dialled up the two circles converge. Should autonomy increase to the point that the decision to fire be under the control of an Artificial Intelligence within the weapon’s software then the two circles will overlap. This paper details research conclusions within the overlap, and proposes a new methodology able to certify that an AI based autonomous weapons system is “safe to operate itself safely” when in an autonomous state.

Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany

Danaher (2016) has argued that increasing robotization can lead to retribution gaps: Situations in which the normative fact that nobody can be justly held responsible for a harmful outcome stands in conflict with our retributivist moral dispositions. In this paper, we report a cross-cultural empirical study based on Sparrow’s (2007) famous example of an autonomous weapon system committing a war crime, which was conducted with participants from the US, Japan and Germany. We find that (1) people manifest a considerable willingness to hold autonomous systems morally responsible, (2) partially exculpate human agents when interacting with such systems, and that more generally (3) the possibility of normative responsibility gaps is indeed at odds with people’s pronounced retributivist inclinations. We discuss what these results mean for potential implications of the retribution gap and other positions in the responsibility gap literature.

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: Ethical Dilemmas and Legal Compliance in the Era of Military Disruptive Technologies

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) have emerged as one of the most significant advancements in military technology, leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to execute missions without direct human control. As these systems become central to modern warfare, they raise critical questions about their compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL). This paper delves into the legal and ethical debates surrounding LAWS with particular attention to the discussions within the Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS (GGE on LAWS). We analyze whether these technologies can adhere to fundamental human rights while maintaining their operational efficacy. Through the application of the Autonomy Spectrum Framework to real-world scenarios, the study highlights both the strategic advantages of LAWS and the risks of dehumanizing warfare. The need for robust legal frameworks to ensure accountability and human oversight remains paramount.

How AI Systems Can Be Blameworthy

AbstractAI systems, like self-driving cars, healthcare robots, or Autonomous Weapon Systems, already play an increasingly important role in our lives and will do so to an even greater extent in the near future. This raises a fundamental philosophical question: who is morally responsible when such systems cause unjustified harm? In the paper, we argue for the admittedly surprising claim that some of these systems can themselves be morally responsible for their conduct in an important and everyday sense of the term—the attributability sense. More specifically, relying on work by Nomy Arpaly and Timothy Schroeder (In Praise of Desire, OUP 2014), we propose that the behavior of these systems can manifest their ‘quality of will’ and thus be regarded as something they can be blameworthy for. We develop this position in detail, justify some of its crucial presuppositions, and defend it against potential objections.

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems and Automation Bias

Autonomy in weapon systems is already a genuine concern. States try to come up with their own definitions of these systems and pay utmost effort to impose their own understanding of these systems upon other states. For a fairly high number of states barring a total ban on such weapons would be the ideal solution; however, such states that are anxious about the increase in autonomy in war-making capabilities, as adopts a second-best scenario to contain risks created by the deployment of such systems. To this end, placing them under meaningful human control emerges as an important political and legal objective. The author believes that placing autonomous weapons under human supervision, despite its initial promise, will yield negative results. This is due to the fact that humans tend rather to be too willing to follow the solutions generated by autonomous systems. First observed in other industries of civilian nature like aviation or health, automation bias has the potential to negate most if not all of supervision measures expected to ensure proper implementation of international humanitarian law.

ICRC’s Intervention on AI Based Weapon under International Humanitarian Law: A Critical Analysis

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has exerted pressure on nations to enact new international legislation that would limit the use of certain autonomous weapons, including those under third-party control, and forbid the deployment of others. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a neutral, independent organization that offers victims of armed conflict and other perilous situations humanitarian protection and support. In addition to responding to emergencies, it promotes compliance with international humanitarian law and its assimilation into national laws. In modern times, the military is making significant investments in artificial intelligence, and there are already instances of AI being used in conflict. A number of sectors that create serious humanitarian concerns include those that the ICRC has identified as areas in which artificial intelligence is being developed for use in combat by armed actors. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been pressuring governments to pass new international laws that would prohibit the deployment of some autonomous weapons and restrict the use of others, including those that are controlled by third parties.

ROBOTIC REVOLUTION: DOES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TRIGGER INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT OR NON- INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT

The introduction of new forms of artificial intelligence (AI) military weaponry specifically autonomous weapon systems (AWS) can select and engage targets without human intervention therefore the application of lethal AWS incorporation with AI has revolutionized armed conflicts.The main concern regarding the military application of AI is the use of force should be maintained by only human soldiers. There is an urgent need to reinterpret the threshold for triggering an international armed conflict because AI technology unintentionally causes war during border control or surveillance operation. This article predominantly focuses on fully autonomous weapon systems which refer to human agents being removed from certain force applications. The main research questions in this article are first, is it possible that an AWS might, alone, spark an international armed conflict, thus bringing international humanitarian law into force? Second, can the criteria of organisation and intensity that give rise to non-international armed conflicts be met when AWS are controlled by non-state armed actors? This study will examine the research questions by focusing on the main areas of debate in the field of international law on AWS, specifically the compatibility of AI with the principles of humanitarian law, the determination of international responsibility, and ethical problems.

The International Law Dilemma of Autonomous Weapon System

This paper aims to highlight the potential for serious humanitarian disasters caused by the rapid development of autonomous weapons systems, as they are currently unable to fully grasp the ability to analyze their targets and clearly distinguish between combatants and military targets due to current technological limitations. There is also controversy over whether autonomous weapons systems are combatants, and there is a certain degree of regulatory deficiencies in the field of international law. Existing international treaties are unable to perfectly regulate autonomous weapons systems and punish unlawful behavior. The paper mainly uses the method of analyzing specific problems based on legal principles and draws conclusions by referring to some cases. The conclusion of this paper is that the international community needs to establish a new, targeted international legal treaty, establish a more reasonable and realistic international soft law, establish and improve a broader international exchange system, and encourage countries to work together to solve this problem.

The ethical debate about the use of autonomous weapon systems from a theological perspective

The ethical debate about the use of autonomous weapon systems from a theological perspective

THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGIES APPLICATION IN THE MILITARY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

This article analyzes the use of artificial intelligence technologies in military systems. Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the modern areas of information technology. The history of human-like mechanisms development dates back to ancient times and has gone through a complex evolutionary path from myths and legends about the first androids, mechanical chess players and other complex mechanisms with human behaviour to modern autonomous robots. The first research on AI in the modern sense began almost immediately since the appearance of the first computers. Since the late 1950s, AI researchers have been trying to create smart machines that mimic the brain. AI has become a key technology in various industries, including the military, in recent decades. Thanks to its characteristics, AI transforms traditional strategies and tactics into a military art. Various aspects of the artificial intelligence use are discussed, in particular autonomous weapons systems, forecasting and analytics, cybersecurity and strategic planning. The advantages and opportunities provided by the use of artificial intelligence by military formations are highlighted, as well as attention is drawn to the ethical and legal aspects of this issue. Artificial intelligence technologies open up new opportunities for the military in many aspects, from autonomous systems to analytics and strategic planning. However, it is also important to take into account the ethical and legal aspects of these technologies use, as well as the risks associated with their implementation. A balanced approach to the use of artificial intelligence will help ensure its effective application in military systems. The article focuses on the importance of a balanced approach to the artificial intelligence technologies use for military purposes, taking into account their capabilities and risks.

Challenges and Prospects for the Law of Armed Conflict — A Humanitarian Perspective

The law of armed conflict, as the international legal system that regulates the conduct of war and mitigates its catastrophic consequences, has in recent years faced the challenges of high-tech forms of warfare, the involvement of non-state actors, and the complexities of civil-military integration. To address the complexity of non-international armed conflict, international humanitarian law should be “strategically” disseminated, non-government parties should be urged to issue unilateral declarations or codes of conduct, and the UN Security Council Action Plan model and the Geneva Call’s “Deed of Commitment” model should continue to be explored and implemented. The distinction between combatants and civilians in cyber-armed conflict requires more attention to actual behavior than to the appearance of the operator, with full consideration of the relationship between full membership and function. For the use of autonomous weapons systems, we must balance military interests and the consequences of damage, maximize the recognition and decision-making capabilities of autonomous weapons systems, and maintain human oversight and control during high-risk decisions.

The Rapid Emergence of Autonomous Weapons (AWS) and its Ethical Challenges

Purpose: This article aims to derive ethical challenges for the Republic of Korea (ROK) military in response to the rapid emergence of Autonomous Weapons (AWS) and propose development strategies. Method: To identify previous research on AWS and ethical challenges regarding AWS in the international community, this research proposed ethical challenges and development strategies for AWS in the ROK military. Results: The ethical challenges regarding AWS in the ROK military include controllability, accountability, reliability, transparency, data management, and human rights protection. To overcome the ethical challenges associated with the development of AWS, active collaboration with not only the Ministry of National Defense but also relevant agencies, industry-academia partnerships, and other stakeholders is necessary to promote their advancement. Conclusion: The ethical issues related to the dignity of life, control over decision-making, and other aspects must be continuously improved in the process of utilizing AWS for ROK military purposes in cooperation with the international community.

The commission of crimes using autonomous weapon systems: Issues of causation and attribution

Today’s military takes advantage of technological progress primarily through developments in the war industry. Of particular importance is the development and use of advanced autonomous weapon systems, which are changing the way conflicts are fought and redefining the basic strategies on the modern battlefield. The use of these systems raises ethical, philosophical, and legal questions about the relationship of causality and attribution that must exist between an act and its criminal result.

Conceptual Difficulties in the Transformation of Human Rights to the Realm of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence has been seeping into various fields of international law for some time, affecting fields such as international humanitarian law – especially regarding the legality of autonomous weapon systems, but also intellectual property law and the legal profession as a whole. A conflicting zone encompassing many subfields is human rights, where an already sensitive subject that is open to debates and interpretation is met with rough questions. For instance, should and could human rights norms be transferred into pre-programmed entities? What relevance can human rights have to a non-human being that has been created, programmed and assembled by humans? Vast regional differences exist between the European, African and Inter-American systems with a lack of coherent structure in the Asia-Pacific region. Our understanding of human rights has also developed substantially over the decades, especially regarding norms on slavery, free speech, the prohibition of discrimination and the rights of women, of disabled persons and indigenous peoples to name a few examples. Furthermore, a vast array of international documents on human rights are political manifestos utilising expressions such as “respecting” and “ensuring” human rights as obligations for members of the international community. Since these provisions deliberately leave a lot of room for interpretation, it seems almost an impossible task to translate them to “binary code”, to a format that is digestible for an artificial entity. The article aims to answer these questions by analysing the abovementioned line of thought and combining it with various attempts at international regulation by states, international organisations as well as non-governmental organisations and think-tanks. The fundamental focus of this paper is to ascertain whether human rights and AI can be made compatible under the current framework of international law at today’s level of development.

Owning Decisions: AI Decision-Support and the Attributability-Gap

Artificial intelligence (AI) has long been recognised as a challenge to responsibility. Much of this discourse has been framed around robots, such as autonomous weapons or self-driving cars, where we arguably lack control over a machine’s behaviour and therefore struggle to identify an agent that can be held accountable. However, most of today’s AI is based on machine-learning technology that does not act on its own, but rather serves as a decision-support tool, automatically analysing data to help human agents make better decisions. I argue that decision-support tools pose a challenge to responsibility that goes beyond the familiar problem of finding someone to blame or punish for the behaviour of agent-like systems. Namely, they pose a problem for what we might call “decision ownership”: they make it difficult to identify human agents to whom we can attribute value-judgements that are reflected in decisions. Drawing on recent philosophical literature on responsibility and its various facets, I argue that this is primarily a problem of attributability rather than of accountability. This particular responsibility problem comes in different forms and degrees, most obviously when an AI provides direct recommendations for actions, but also, less obviously, when it provides mere descriptive information on the basis of which a decision is made.

A cybersystemic view of autonomous weapon systems (AWS)

Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWSs) are perhaps one of the most contentious forms of technology. However, the notion of an AWS is not easily defined since its differentiating feature from a weapon is the autonomous system. This lends itself to a systems approach to making sense of what constitutes an AWS.This paper's aim is to examine how a systemic perspective can aid our understanding of an AWS. It is proposed that an AWS can be interpreted in terms of three pillars. Firstly is system, which, when viewed in terms of self-regulating systems, leads to the second pillar which is autonomy. Underpinning the functioning of these self-regulating systems is the third pillar, values, manifesting in their legal and moral considerations. The UK approach to AWS, revealed in a number of recent Ministry of defence documents is explored using the three pillars. This provides a rich insight into the complexity associated with AWS and the challenge of defining what constitutes the system, the nature of autonomy and how values govern their use, in particular legal compliance and ethical judgement. It is concluded that the three pillars offers a useful framework to make sense of the complexity of other forms of autonomous technological systems.