Autonomous Weapon Systems and Strategic Stability

Autonomous weapons technologies, which rely on artificial intelligence, are advancing rapidly and without sufficient public debate or accountability. Oversight of increased autonomy in warfare is critically important because this deadly technology is likely to proliferate rapidly, enhance terrorist tactics, empower authoritarian rulers, undermine democratic peace, and is vulnerable to bias, hacking, and malfunction. The top competitors in this arms race are the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, and the European Union.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Artificial Intelligence Arms Race: Trends and World Leaders in Autonomous Weapons Development

Haner

Garcia²

2019

“…1 Strategic concerns include proliferation, arms races and escalation risks (Altmann and Sauer, 2017;Rickli, 2018). 1 Strategic concerns include proliferation, arms races and escalation risks (Altmann and Sauer, 2017;Rickli, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous arguments motivate the current call for an international, legally binding ban on so-called lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). 1 Strategic concerns include proliferation, arms races and escalation risks (Altmann and Sauer, 2017;Rickli, 2018). Military concerns include the incompatibility of LAWS with a traditional chain of command or the potential for operational failures cascading at machine speed (Bode and Huelss, 2018;Scharre, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prohibiting Autonomous Weapons: Put Human Dignity First

Rosert

Sauer

2019

Self Cite

In addition to its successful mobilization in stigmatization and norm‐setting processes on anti‐personnel landmines and cluster munitions, the principle of distinction as enshrined in International Humanitarian Law also figures prominently in the debate on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). Proponents of a ban on LAWS frame these as indiscriminate, that is, unable to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and thus as inherently unlawful. The flip side of this particular legal argument is, however, that LAWS become acceptable when considered capable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians. We thus argue, first, that this particular legal basis for the call for a ban on LAWS might be rendered obsolete by technological progress increasing discriminatory weapon capabilities. Second, we argue that the argument is normatively troubling as it suggests that, as long as civilians remain unharmed, attacking combatants with LAWS is acceptable. Consequently, we find that the legal principle of distinction is not the overall strongest argument to mobilize when trying to stigmatize and ban LAWS. A more fundamental, ethical argument within the debate about LAWS – and one less susceptible to ‘technological fixes’ – should be emphasized instead, namely that life and death decisions on the battlefield should always and in principle be made by humans only.

“…Partly overshadowed by a continued focus on drones, in particular within the discipline of International Relations (IR), the multi-faceted and complex weaponization of artificial intelligence (AI) is already in full swing (Altmann and Sauer, 2017;Bode and Huelss, 2018;Boulanin and Verbruggen, 2017;Garcia, 2016;Scharre, 2018). Partly overshadowed by a continued focus on drones, in particular within the discipline of International Relations (IR), the multi-faceted and complex weaponization of artificial intelligence (AI) is already in full swing (Altmann and Sauer, 2017;Bode and Huelss, 2018;Boulanin and Verbruggen, 2017;Garcia, 2016;Scharre, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, recent technological advancements point to the growing importance of an increasing range of autonomous features in weapons systems, which qualitatively surpass remote-controlled instruments. Partly overshadowed by a continued focus on drones, in particular within the discipline of International Relations (IR), the multi-faceted and complex weaponization of artificial intelligence (AI) is already in full swing (Altmann and Sauer, 2017;Bode and Huelss, 2018;Boulanin and Verbruggen, 2017;Garcia, 2016;Scharre, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the Special Section: The Autonomisation of Weapons Systems: Challenges to International Relations

Bode

Huelss

2019

The collection of eight articles in this special section provides insightful thinking points in the context of the political debate, the academic conversation, and the public interest in novel security technologies with autonomous features. These articles are also a call for further, empirically and theoretically informed research into the implications of AI for the international security dimension, specifically, and for societies more generally.