Autonomous weapons in armed conflict and the right to a dignified life: an African perspective

Abstract

Autonomous weapons are weapons that, once activated, can without further human intervention select and engage targets. This raises the possibility that computers will determine whether people will live or die. The possible use of autonomous weapons against humans in armed conflict clearly has potential right to life implications. This contribution argues that the right to dignity angle must also be brought into play. The first concern raised by autonomous weapons is 'can they do it?': Can autonomus targeting conform with the requirements of international humanitarian law, in particular the rules of distinction and proportionality? If machines cannot do proper targeting, such use of force will be 'arbitrary' and thus violate the right to life. Moreover, the right to life requires accountability, but it is not clear who is to be held responsible when robots get it wrong. Secondly: 'Should they do it?' Should robots have the power of life and death over humans? This may violate the rights to life as well as the right to dignity. The question whether there is 'meaningful human control' over the release of force is emerging as a helpful tool to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable autonomous targeting, and I argue that it also makes sense from a human rights perspective. The question that will haunt the debate in the future is: What if technology develops to the point where it is clear that fully autonomous weapons surpass human targeting, and can potentially save many lives? Would human rights considerations in such a case not militate for the use of autonomous weapons, instead of against it? I argue that the rights to life and dignity demand that even under such circumstances, full autonomy in force delivery should not be allowed. The article emphasises the importance placed on the concept of a 'dignified life' in the African human rights system.

Autonomous weapons systems, killer robots and human dignity

“…When autonomous weapons are used there is a lack of accountability, since the weapon or robot cannot be held responsible for its actions, and if unnecessary civilian deaths or casualties were to occur it is not clear who could be punished or held to account for them. Related arguments are made by several writers, including Sharkey (2012a, b), Asaro (2012), Tamburrini (2016) and Heyns (2013Heyns ( , 2016Heyns ( , 2017.…”

“…Heyns (2013) also points out the current inability of autonomous weapons to do proper targeting, and their "lack of human judgment, common sense, appreciation of the larger picture, understanding of the intentions behind people's actions, and understanding of values and anticipation of the direction in which events are unfolding" (Heyns 2013). However, as well as questioning whether autonomous weapons can do proper targeting, he also asks whether they should be used even if they were able to adhere to IHL rules about distinction, proportionality and precaution (Heyns 2017).…”

“…He also argues that they would be against the right to dignity of those targeted and of those in whose name such force was deployed. Heyns (2017) bases his argument on the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which is emphatic about the need to protect a right to a 'dignified life', and which emphasises the interrelated nature of the right to life and the right to dignity. In other work (Heyns 2013(Heyns , 2016, he places more emphasis on a Kantian account of dignity.…”

“…Heyns (2017) bases his argument on the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which is emphatic about the need to protect a right to a 'dignified life', and which emphasises the interrelated nature of the right to life and the right to dignity. In other work (Heyns 2013(Heyns , 2016, he places more emphasis on a Kantian account of dignity. Asaro (2012) also argues that AWS should not be used even if they were able to meet the requirements of IHL.…”

“…These range from extreme difficulties in complying with international law to serious problems with global security. It has also been said that they are against human dignity (Asaro 2012;Docherty 2014;Heyns 2017;Ulgen 2016). However there have been criticisms of the use of human dignity as the basis for arguments for a prohibition of AWS (Pop 2018;Saxton 2016;Birnbacher 2016).…”