Development Of Autonomous Weapons Systems Research Articles

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.

Autonomous Weapons in the Light of Care Ethics

The development of autonomous weapons systems is ongoing, and in the future, there may be a serious risk of deployment of these weapons without human control. The world is facing a possible new way of warfare separated from human intervention. This raises the urgency for conceptual, moral thinking on this matter. In this essay, care ethics provides constitutional elements to this moral reflection. According to care ethics, humans are intertwined, dependent on each other, and always related. In these relations, care is the central notion. The overarching goal of providing care is promoting and sustaining human dignity. The violation of this human dignity is the main argument to oppose the deployment of fully autonomous weapons.

Crimes without Humanity?

Abstract The development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) and, more generally, the role of artificial intelligence in warfare, may come to pose unprecedented challenges to criminal law, including by making it harder to link harm to individuals who can be held responsible, due to the pivotal role of the concepts of actus reus, mens rea and causation in that domain. In this context, the notion of meaningful human control has been proposed to address some of the challenges of ensuring accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian law. One possibility might be to link — conceptually, or even legally — meaningful human control with the ‘control theory’ propounded at the International Criminal Court to assign criminal responsibility. Under this theory, the ascription of criminal responsibility to an individual as a direct perpetrator requires an assessment of whether they enjoy an effective ability to decide on the commission of a crime. This article elaborates on some of the issues posed by this approach, proceeding then to consider the most ‘extreme’ instance of AWS, i.e. the deployment of swarms of drones operating autonomously and coordinating their behaviour in a decentralized manner.

Ethical and Legal Limits to the Diffusion of Self-Produced Autonomous Weapons

The theme of self-produced weapons intertwines diversified ideas of an ethical, legal, engineering and data science nature. The critical starting point concerns the use of 3D printing for the self-production of weapons: the doctrinal and ethical discussion is open, while from a case-law point of view no published decisions have been found. From a technical point of view it should be noted that, being produced with materials other than metal, the weapons in question would increase their danger, since it would not be possible to ascertain their possession through metal detectors. This possibility demonstrates how the combination of the application of 3D printing and AI can lead to further development of Autonomous Weapon Systems, especially drones, which are no longer confined to science fiction novels, but may appear on the market for goods and even become available for mass consumption, and it stresses the need for the promotion of negotiations for the drafting of an international treaty banning the production and use of lethal autonomous weapons. The combination of such printers with biometric facial recognition algorithms raises concerns for the increasing issues of physical, individual and collective safety that may arise. In fact, the biometric recognition technology allows the identification of individuals through the measurement and analysis of the somatic or behavioural traits; it is based on intelligent software, modelled on the human ability to recognize and identify faces by collecting and analysing huge amounts of data, and it is able to evolve its skills beyond its programmer’s initial intention. It is clear that allowing self-production of such devices by non-expert users could produce more damages than benefits. The purpose of this contribution is to study how to regulate the effects of such self-made autonomous robots, since their use may have a devastating and disruptive effect on public integrity and social peace, especially in case of violent riots.

Ethical and Legal Limits to the Diffusion of Self-Produced Autonomous Weapons

The theme of self-produced weapons intertwines diversified ideas of an ethical, legal, engineering and data science nature. The critical starting point concerns the use of 3D printing for the self-production of weapons: the doctrinal and ethical discussion is open, while from a case-law point of view no published decisions have been found. From a technical point of view it should be noted that, being produced with materials other than metal, the weapons in question would increase their danger, since it would not be possible to ascertain their possession through metal detectors.
 This possibility demonstrates how the combination of the application of 3D printing and AI can lead to further development of Autonomous Weapon Systems, especially drones, which are no longer confined to science fiction novels, but may appear on the market for goods and even become available for mass consumption, and it stresses the need for the promotion of negotiations for the drafting of an international treaty banning the production and use of lethal autonomous weapons.
 The combination of such printers with biometric facial recognition algorithms raises concerns for the increasing issues of physical, individual and collective safety that may arise. In fact, the biometric recognition technology allows the identification of individuals through the measurement and analysis of the somatic or behavioural traits; it is based on intelligent software, modelled on the human ability to recognize and identify faces by collecting and analysing huge amounts of data, and it is able to evolve its skills beyond its programmer’s initial intention. It is clear that allowing self-production of such devices by non-expert users could produce more damages than benefits. 
 The purpose of this contribution is to study how to regulate the effects of such self-made autonomous robots, since their use may have a devastating and disruptive effect on public integrity and social peace, especially in case of violent riots.

Is Transparency Excluded Where Autonomous Weapons Systems Are Concerned?

ABSTRACT The paper explores mechanisms of transparency utilized by states to address security challenges caused by the development of autonomous weapons systems. The purpose of this paper is to answer whether transparency measures are able to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law in the context of autonomous weapons systems. The dogmatic and comparative methods were used to analyze the role of transparency in balancing international obligations with domestic interests. Because of domestic security, introducing new regulations on autonomous weapons systems is counter-productive. Transparency contributes to a better optimization of secrecy and information, while soft law, paradoxically, is better suited to widening common standards of conduct with weapon systems.

Requirement of Mens Rea for War Crimes in the Light of the Development of Autonomous Weapons Systems

El desarrollo de prácticamente cualquier tecnología conlleva presiones sobre el marco legal que evidencian, por lo general, las dificultades que presenta el derecho para avanzar al mismo ritmo. En algunos casos, estas presiones adquieren una relevancia significativa, si no por su visibilidad, sí por las consecuencias que una deficiente regulación podría generar. Este artículo analiza, desde la perspectiva de la Corte Penal Internacional, el supuesto problema que implicaría la introducción de sistemas de armas autónomas al campo de batalla, particularmente en lo relativo al requisito de mens rea para crímenes de guerra.

I Met Viki on the 29th of August: Why Autonomous Weapon Systems are Defensible and Should Be Developed

In this paper, I argue that there is no theoretical bar to the development of autonomous weapon systems, and that their practical benefits must be considered. Further, I argue that meaningful human control, as a guiding principle for the development of smart weapons, is based on fundamentally flawed arguments. I also argue that human control, in itself, is not an adequate check on such autonomous weapons. I finally argue that it is possible to hold an autonomous weapon system responsible for its actions, and that there is a way to enforce punishment and reward schemas.

The case for and against autonomous weapon systems.

The development of autonomous weapon systems, by removing the human element of warfare, could make war crimes and atrocities a thing of the past. But if these systems are unable to respect the principles of humanitarian law, we might create a super-intelligent predator that is beyond our control.

Use of Weapons: Should We Ban the Development of Autonomous Weapons Systems?

ABSTRACTThe use of robotic systems in warfare dates back to the Second World War. Recent advances in technology compounded by the need to reduce military budgets while increasing effectiveness have raised the likelihood and desire for increasing levels of autonomy in these robotic systems. Relinquishing control of such platforms to increasingly intelligent and capable artificial intelligence (AI) has led to a public backlash and calls for a ban in their development, backed by many high profile names in AI research as well as the wider scientific community. The purpose of this article is to assess the validity of the arguments for and against the research into, and the development of, autonomous weapons systems (AWS). By answering the question “should we ban the development of autonomous weapons systems?” this article will clear the way for a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the deployment of AWS. It will make the case that not only should governments and defense contractors make use of these systems in the future but that to not do so would be to hold back the progress of a range of military technologies that hold the distinct possibility of creating safer more humane battlefields and lower the barriers to entrance of conflict, something much needed by western forces to combat various threats around the globe.

Tin Men: Ethics, Cybernetics and the Importance of Soul

The idea that overly emotional humans make poor ethical actors pervades the current literature on the ethical implications of the development of autonomous weapons systems. From this perspective, developing fully autonomous military robots should be doubly desirable: the technical process of ‘teaching’ robots ethics would finally systematize just war thinking, while robots could uphold the rules of engagement even under the most emotionally trying of situations. This article addresses my doubts about both claims. I argue that truly ethical behavior requires what classical just war theorists would have called soul, or what we might today term conscience – and that the flexibility of the traditional principles reflects this understanding. In pursuit of this argument, this article proceeds in two parts. First, it argues that the apparent ‘messiness’ of just war thought is actually morally useful. Second, it argues that emotions play an important and irreplaceable role in our ethical behavior, particularly as they help us mediate between incommensurable goods and intersecting ethical systems.

Law and Ethics for Autonomous Weapon Systems: Why a Ban Won't Work and How the Laws of War Can

Public debate is heating up over the future development of autonomous weapon systems. Some concerned critics portray that future, often invoking science-fiction imagery, as a plain choice between a world in which those systems are banned outright and a world of legal void and ethical collapse on the battlefield. Yet an outright ban on autonomous weapon systems, even if it could be made effective, trades whatever risks autonomous weapon systems might pose in war for the real, if less visible, risk of failing to develop forms of automation that might make the use of force more precise and less harmful for civilians caught near it. Grounded in a more realistic assessment of technology — acknowledging what is known and what is yet unknown — as well as the interests of the many international and domestic actors involved, this paper outlines a practical alternative: the gradual evolution of codes of conduct based on traditional legal and ethical principles governing weapons and warfare.This essay revises and significantly extends an earlier, short Policy Review article by Anderson & Waxman from 2012, also posted to SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2046375, Law and Ethics for Robot Soldiers.