Autonomous Weapons Systems: Taking the Human Out of International Humanitarian Law

Abstract

Once confined to science fiction, killer robots will soon be a reality. Both the USA and the UK are currently developing weapons systems that may be capable of autonomously targeting and killing enemy combatants within the next 25 years. According to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention and customary international law, weapons systems must be capable of operating within the principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This paper will demonstrate that without significant restrictions on the use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) or the creation of a new legal framework, the use of AWS is problematic. First, there are legitimate concerns that AWS are, by their nature, incapable of adhering to IHL principles. Second, there is a more fundamental problem: the principles of IHL are actually insufficient to address the unique concerns regarding AWS. Finally, the solutions proposed by proponents of AWS do not sufficiently address these concerns. A legal solution beyond the general principles of IHL must be developed.

The Legality of the Use of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems in the Conduct of Hostilities

“…Scenario fulfilment refers to the situation when decision-makers interpret and use new information to fit their existing 'belief patterns.' 552 Verlinden refers to the phenomenon as having a 'tunnel vision' under stress that enables an individual only to act according to the already existing scenario he has in mind. 553 Believes and convictions are inherently human traits and one may argue that the situation would be avoidable when using AWS which lack human emotions that may influence decision-making.…”

Killer Robots: Why the US should Lead the Ban

“…Some governments and analysts say that existing international law is sufficient in providing a regulating framework regarding the deployment of automated machines in warfare, especially international humanitarian law (IHL) and the laws of war. IHL has not been sufficient to address the complexity of changed warfare that has occurred in the last decades, let alone in the coming years (Foy, ). It has not been able to adequately define who is a combatant, or who a legitimate target should be in a world with no established armies and mushrooming nonstate armed groups and terrorist cells.…”

Seguridad metropolitana mediante el uso coordinado de Drones

“…Otros drones parecidos al anterior son el Mantis, el Reaper y el Taranis. [4] Con este tipo de desarrollos, se pretende a futuro crear los LAW (Lethal Autonomous Weapon) [5,6], que en esencia son sistemas robóticos inteligentes con la autonomía de aniquilar, en la que rastrea al objetivo y/o selecciona anulándolo por los medios necesarios; lo que supone que se suprime de la ecuación la decisión humana y todo lo que ello acarrea en cuanto a aspectos éticos y morales [7]. En este sentido, se han manifestado en contra de este tipo de desarrollos diversos organismos gubernamentales y no gubernamentales, que aunque no se sabe que ya exista un dron o robot con estas características, si es cierto que con el desarrollo tecnológico actual y venidero, es muy probable que dentro de pocos años se escuche sobre estos sistemas y se vea en operación en algún lugar del mundo.…”