Use Of Autonomous Weapon Systems Research Articles

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

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.

Putting algorithmic bias on top of the agenda in the discussions on autonomous weapons systems

Biases in artificial intelligence have been flagged in academic and policy literature for years. Autonomous weapons systems—defined as weapons that use sensors and algorithms to select, track, target, and engage targets without human intervention—have the potential to mirror systems of societal inequality which reproduce algorithmic bias. This article argues that the problem of engrained algorithmic bias poses a greater challenge to autonomous weapons systems developers than most other risks discussed in the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE on LAWS), which should be reflected in the outcome documents of these discussions. This is mainly because it takes longer to rectify a discriminatory algorithm than it does to issue an apology for a mistake that occurs occasionally. Highly militarised states have controlled both the discussions and their outcomes, which have focused on issues that are pertinent to them while ignoring what is existential for the rest of the world. Various calls from civil society, researchers, and smaller states for a legally binding instrument to regulate the development and use of autonomous weapons systems have always included the call for recognising algorithmic bias in autonomous weapons, which has not been reflected in discussion outcomes. This paper argues that any ethical framework developed for the regulation of autonomous weapons systems should, in detail, ensure that the development and use of autonomous weapons systems do not prejudice against vulnerable sections of (global) society.

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.

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.

AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS AND THE JUST WAR THEORY: CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS

Autonomous weapon systems (AWS) present a formidable obstacle to the application of just war theory in international law. While just war theory has long served as a framework for assessing the moral and legal justification of armed conflict, the lack of human control over the use of force in AWS creates unique ethical and legal challenges. This article investigates the effects of AWS on just war theory in international law, including the application of jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria. It discusses the benefits and drawbacks of AWS, the current legal framework for these systems, and the difficulties associated with applying just war theory criteria to AWS. The article concludes with recommendations for future research and policy development to address these challenges, including the need for additional research, the development of clear legal frameworks, international cooperation and coordination, public participation and awareness, and research on alternative approaches to the use of AWS in armed conflict. By addressing these concerns, researchers can work toward a future in which the development and use of AWS are consistent with the principles of the just war theory and international law

Autonomous weapon systems and IHL compliance: A constrained legal optimisation problem

Abstract Arguments have been made both for and against military use of autonomous weapon systems (AWSs) on the basis of how they will help or hinder a state in meeting its international humanitarian law (IHL) obligations. Often, these arguments are made in isolation, or they fail to address all of the potential compliance concerns related to autonomous weapons. This is not ideal. It means the bearers of legal obligations must locate, assess and piece together the disparate arguments into a coherent structure if they are to know whether they can legitimately utilise a particular autonomous capability and, if so, in what circumstances. This article offers a high-level description of a conceptual framework which can be used to organise and assess legal arguments about autonomous weapons. It proposes that the task of integrating autonomous capabilities into an armed force may be viewed as a constrained optimisation problem wherein the task is to find the optimal balance between the fundamental principles of IHL while also satisfying all normative, technological and strategic/operational constraints.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL AS A NORM OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ARMED CONFLICTS USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

One major area of concern in relation to the use of autonomous weapon systems is that it involves humans giving some, if not all, control over a weapon system to a form of computer. This idea relates to the concerns that a computer’s ability to autonomously operate weapon systems puts the control of these systems beyond the bounds of the armed forces. This article examines the role that the concept of meaningful human control plays in the ongoing discourse, describes current perspectives of what meaningful human control entails, and reviews its value in the context of the analysis of AWS presented in this article. Within this article, as is the case in the wider debate, the term meaningful human control is used to describe a quality that is perceived to be essential for a given attack to be considered to be compliant with international humanitarian law rules. It does not denote a specific class of weapon systems that permit or require a minimum level of human control; rather, it infers that a weapon that is used in an attack that is legally compliant with international humanitarian law rules would essentially incorporate a meaningful level of human control.

Autonomous Weapon Systems: Attributing the Corporate Accountability

Background: The use of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) in armed conflict has been rapidly expanding. Consequently, the development of AWS worries legal scholars. If AWS were to operate without ‘meaningful human control’, the violation of international law and human rights would be unpreventable. Methods: This paper indicates that the most important problem arising from the use of AWS is the attribution responsibility for the violation of corporate actors. Nevertheless, it is ambiguous who is legally responsible for these international crimes, thus creating an accountability gap. The main problem regarding corporate responsibility that covers the process of employing AWS is determining who exercises causal control over a chain of acts leading to the crime’s commission. The paper proposes a more optimistic view of artificial intelligence, raising two challenges for corporate responsibility. First, the paper maps the framework of the use of AWS regarding corporate actors. Second, the article identifies the problem of accountability by presenting some possible scenarios linked to the AWS context as a solution to this problem. Results and Conclusions: The results have exposed ambiguity in international law and the absence of essential laws regarding the attribution of responsibility for AWS and the punishment of the perpetrator – international law needs to be improved and regulated.

Warfare and Machines: An In-depth Study of Autonomous Weapons in the Context of International Humanitarian Law

This research article looks at the ramifications of autonomous weapon systems within the context of international humanitarian law. The author discusses the most recent breakthroughs in autonomous weapons, their features, and the benefits to the parties that use them. The study investigates how autonomous weapons comply with treaty law, focusing on the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. The study also examines how customary international law concepts be applied to autonomous weapons. To provide policymakers and other relevant authorities the clarity on the subject, the author has also offered some recommendations in the concluding section. In addition to analyzing the legal framework surrounding autonomous weapon systems, this research article delves into the ethical considerations associated with their deployment. The author explores the potential consequences of autonomous weapons on human rights, accountability, and the moral implications of delegating lethal decision-making to machines. By scrutinizing the intersection of international humanitarian law and ethical considerations, the article aims to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted challenges posed by autonomous weapon systems. The concluding section not only offers recommendations for legal compliance but also emphasizes the importance of a holistic approach that integrates ethical considerations into the regulatory landscape governing these advanced technologies. This holistic perspective aims to guide policymakers and relevant authorities in formulating balanced and responsible policies concerning the development and use of autonomous weapon systems.

AWS compliance with the ethical principle of proportionality: three possible solutions

The ethical Principle of Proportionality requires combatants not to cause collateral harm excessive in comparison to the anticipated military advantage of an attack. This principle is considered a major (and perhaps insurmountable) obstacle to ethical use of autonomous weapon systems (AWS). This article reviews three possible solutions to the problem of achieving Proportionality compliance in AWS. In doing so, I describe and discuss the three components Proportionality judgments, namely collateral damage estimation, assessment of anticipated military advantage, and judgment of “excessiveness”. Some possible approaches to Proportionality compliance are then presented, such as restricting AWS operations to environments lacking civilian presence, using AWS in targeted strikes in which proportionality judgments are pre-made by human commanders, and a ‘price tag’ approach of pre-assigning acceptable collateral damage values to military hardware in conventional attritional warfare. The article argues that application of these three compliance methods would result in AWS’ achieving acceptable Proportionality compliance levels in many combat environments and scenarios, allowing AWS to perform most key tasks in conventional warfare.

AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

The article questions the compliance of autonomous weapons systems with international humanitarian law (IHL). It seeks to answer this question by analysing the application of the core principles of international humanitarian law with regard to the use of autonomous weapons systems. As part of the discussion on compliance, the article also considers the implications of riskless warfare where non-human agents are used. The article presupposes that it is actually possible for AWS to comply with IHL in very broad and general terms. However, there is a need for discussion, acceptance, and institutionalization of the interpretation for classification of AWS as well as expansion of the legal framework to cater to the advanced technology. This interpretation will also include a system for allocating and attributing responsibility for their use. The article's results will demonstrate the legal consequences of developing and employing weapon systems capable of performing important functions like target selection and engagement autonomously and the role of IHL and IHRL in regulating the use of these weapons, particularly in human control over individual assaults.

POSITIVE HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATION OF STATES AND THE USE OF AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS DURING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

Autonomous weapon systems are artificial intelligence-based, modern weapon systems that can identify and destroy targets without meaningful human intervention. In this article, human rights violations that may occur in case of widespread use of autonomous weapon systems in law enforcement operations in the near future will be examined and the positive obligations of states will be determined. States' positive human rights obligations in line with the United Nations, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, can be listed as weapon selection and the duty of precaution, the official training of law enforcement officers, procedural obligation, the right to explanation and the right not to be subject to completely automatic decisions. The research results of this article offer that, in line with the existing case law of human rights courts, autonomous weapon systems cannot comply with the positive obligation on the right to life.

Automated vehicles – is a dilution of human responsibility the answer?

AI-driven vehicles and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems may cause serious injury to people while operating independently. Besides vehicles progress may be seen in the use of autonomous weapon systems, AI in medicine and care robots. It seems that soon AI systems will increasingly be making decisions previously made by humans. A Swedish inquiry argued that existing criminal law rules on responsibility are not suitable for automated vehicles (when in the self-driving mode). The human in the driver’s seat would not be blamed if an accident occurs. Conversely, the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence places an emphasis on oversight by human beings to an extent. A battle for the hearts and minds of people might be underway here. It seems that further exploration of the matter is warranted, especially through the criminal law lens—are proposals where the human user is absolved of blame viable at this point in time?

To ban or not to ban. Analyzing the banning process of autonomous weapon systems

Over the last decade, autonomous weapon systems (AWS), also known as ‘killer robots’, have been the subject of widespread debate. These systems impose various ethical, legal, and societal concerns with arguments both in favor and opposed to the weaponry. Consequently, an international policy debate arose out of an urge to ban these systems. AWS are widely discussed at the Human Rights Council debate, the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, and at gatherings of the Convention of Conventional Weapons (CCW), in particular the Expert Meetings on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). Early skepticism towards the use of AWS brought a potential ban to the forefront of policy making decisions with the support of a campaign to 'Stop Killer Robots' launched by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013. The movement is supported by Amnesty International, Pax Christi International, and the International Peace Bureau, among others. This campaign has catalyzed an international regulation process on the level of the United Nations (UN). Both a new protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons or a new international treaty have been considered. However, a lack of consensus stalls the process, and as such, leaves AWS in a regulatory gray zone.

Jus in bello Necessity, The Requirement of Minimal Force, and Autonomous Weapons Systems

ABSTRACT In this article we focus on the jus in bello principle of necessity for guiding the use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS). We begin our analysis with an account of the principle of necessity as entailing the requirement of minimal force found in Just War Theory, before highlighting the absence of this principle in existing work on AWS. Overlooking this principle means discounting the obligations that combatants have towards one another in times of war. We argue that the requirement of minimal force is an important requirement for considering ethical uses of force. In particular, we distinguish between lethal and non-lethal purposes of use of force and introduce the prospect of non-lethal AWS before reviewing a number of challenges which AWS pose with respect to their non-lethal use. The challenges arise where AWS generate unpredictable outcomes impinging upon the situational awareness required of combatants to ensure that their actions meet the requirement of minimal force. We conclude with a call for further research on the ethical implications of non-lethal uses of AWS as a necessary contribution for assessing the moral permissibility of AWS.

The Weaponization of Artificial Intelligence in the Military: The Importance of Meaningful Human Control

Artificial Intelligence has become an essential part of our lives. It has without a doubt made life much easier and practical whether on a global scale such as economical and political development or on a smaller scale such as our day-to-day lives. The last half-decade marked the beginning of the development of robots that have the ability to perform human tasks. Originally, it was expected that the main disadvantage of AI technology would be related to the loss of work prospects since humans would be replaced by machines that are able to operate in a more efficient matter. While this concern is certainly valid, there is a far more severe issue at hand which is none other than the military's use of AI. Governments, journalists, and tech leaders argue that developing and using intelligent and autonomous weaponry is unquestionably a fatal mistake that might lead to catastrophic consequences; it is particularly problematic if these technologies end up in the hands of the wrong individuals. These experts and scholars argued that these weapons could eventually lead to more damage and destruction and could possibly result in a third world war. Thus, they attempted to explore the moral and, most significantly, legal ramifications of these autonomous weapons. As a result, a new formula had to be introduced; this formula is Meaningful Human Control. In fact, the ultimate goal is to make Meaningful Human Control a legal requirement under International Law in order to allow it to serve as a potential solution for a number of moral and legal challenges that these fully autonomous weapons raise. This paper seeks to understand and elaborate on the benefits and the challenges that come with the integration of meaningful human control in the use of autonomous weapons systems.

Defining Weapon Systems with Autonomy: The Critical Functions in Theory and Practice

The rise of the use of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) in the battlefield has engendered numerous ongoing legal debates, including that on their legal definition. There have been various approaches with respect to defining them in relation to their interaction with humans, the complexity of the technology behind them, and the features of their functions. The latter has been particularly endorsed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which defines AWS as weapon systems with autonomy in their critical functions of target selection and attack. None of these approaches received unanimous approval by States. Though scholars have addressed the advantages and the disadvantages of the first two approaches, not many amendments have been introduced on the functional approach of the ICRC.
 The wording of the ICRC definition is vague and requires a framework on what should be defined as critical as well as on the functions of weapon systems. The critical nature of the function must be determined in relation to its relevance in terms of international humanitarian law (IHL) regulating AWS, which is the most important element in their definition. This analysis will benefit to resolve the impasse in the debate on the legal definition of AWS and further the efforts to regulate them.

The Moral Case for the Development and Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems

ABSTRACT Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) are artificial intelligence systems that can make and act on decisions concerning the termination of enemy soldiers and installations without direct intervention from a human being. In this article, I provide the positive moral case for the development and use of supervised and fully autonomous weapons that can reliably adhere to the laws of war. Two strong, prima facie obligations make up the positive case. First, we have a strong moral reason to deploy AWS (in an otherwise just war) because such systems decrease the psychological and moral risk of soldiers and would-be soldiers. Drones protect against lethal risk, AWS protect against psychological and moral risk in addition to lethal risk. Second, we have a prima facie obligation to develop such technologies because, once developed, we could employ forms of non-lethal warfare that would substantially reduce the risk of suffering and death for enemy combatants and civilians alike. These two arguments, covering both sides of a conflict, represent the normative hill that those in favor of a ban on autonomous weapons must overcome. Finally, I demonstrate that two recent objections to AWS fail because they misconstrue the way in which technology is used and conceptualized in modern warfare.