Mitigating the Risk of Autonomous Weapon Misuse by Insurgent Groups

Abstract

The intersection between autonomous weapon systems (‘AWS’) and non-state armed groups (‘NSAG’) is an underexplored aspect of the AWS debate, but one which is nevertheless important: insurgencies have proliferated globally, and armed groups are often associated with a number of violations of the laws of armed conflict (‘LOAC’). This article explores the main ways future policymakers can reduce the risk of NSAGs committing violations using AWS once the technology becomes more prolific and easily distributable. It does this by sketching a chronological picture of an NSAG’s weapons obtention process, looking first at its likely suppliers and transport routes (acquisition), and, subsequently, at factors which can increase the risk of LOAC violations once the system is in their possession (use). With regard to use, we find that the lack of explicit legal obligations in LOAC to (a) review weapons meant solely for transfer and (b) provide technical training to recipients of transfer constitute serious reasons why LOAC violations may be aggravated with the introduction of AWS to insurgent groups. We also find, however, that states are uniquely and powerfully placed to address both acquisition and use factors, and can, in certain situations, be persuaded into implementing risk-reducing measures such as technical training purely for strategic reasons.

Security of Food, Civilians and Combatants Under Human Rights Laws in Times of War

“…This comprehensive analysis laid the foundation for a deeper understanding of the development and contemporary implementation of international humanitarian law and the variety of problems it presents in the setting of armed conflicts [6]. Case studies of wars from the past, as well as the present, may throw light on how international humanitarian law is actually carried out in the real world [7]. Specifically in situations typified with conflict that is asymmetrical and the involvement of outside actors, these examples provided helpful perspectives using which the complicated issues of finding an equilibrium between protecting civilians' and fighters' rights could be addressed [8].…”