Public Law Studies Quarterly

Autonomous Weapons from the Perspective of International Humanitarian Law

Document Type : Article

Authors

Reza Mousazade 1
Ahmadreza Azarpendar 2

1 Prof, School of International Relations, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.352900.3240
Abstract
Considering that neither customary international law nor international treaties have specifically addressed the legality of autonomous weapons from the point of view of international humanitarian law, the law on autonomous weapons should be analyzed under the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. The first purpose of this study is to explain the autonomous weapons and then to analyze the legality of such weapons through the lens of international humanitarian law. The basic question of the paper is whether the deployment of autonomous weapons is legal in light of technological and legal limitations? On the other hand, the paper also seeks to examine the legalization of autonomous weapons. In fact, the findings of our study will show that although autonomous weapons currently violate international humanitarian law, they have the potential to be more consistent with the principles of international humanitarian law in the future.

Keywords

autonomous weapons
international humanitarian law
distinction
proportionality
precautionary measures
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Amoroso, D., & Giordano, B. (2019). ‘Who Is to Blame for Autonomous Weapons Systems’ Misdoings?’ in E Carpanelli and N Lazzerini (eds), Use and Misuse of New Technologies: Contemporary Challenges in International and European Law, Springer.
    3. Bentham, J. (1988). The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Prometheus Books.
    4. Bonnie Lynn Docherty (2012). Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots. Human Rights Watch (HRW).
    5. Boothby (2019). Highly Automated and Autonomous Technologies in WH Boothby (ed), New Technologies and the Law in War and Peace. CUP.
    6. Gaggioli, G., & Melzer, N. (2020). Methods of Warfare, in Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law, Ben Saul & Dapo Akande eds. Oxford Publisher.
    7. Green, L. (2000). The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict. Juris Publishing.
    8. Henckaerts, J. M. (2008). ‘The Development of International Humanitarian Law’, in The Legitimate use of Military Force. Howard M. Hensel ed.
    9. Henckaerts, J.M.و & Doswald-Beck, L., (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Law ICRC Customary Law Study.
    10. ICRC (2014). Autonomous Weapon Systems – Q&A. ICRC publisher.
    11. ICRC (2020). Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons. ICRC publisher.
    12. McFarland, Tim (2020). Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict. CUP publisher.
    13. Melzer (2009). Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. ICRC publisher.
    14. Melzer (2014). The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants in A Clapham and P Gaeta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict.
    15. Mu¨ller, V., & Bostrom, N. (2016). Future Progress in Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Expert Opinion’ in Vincent C Mu¨ller (ed), Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence.
    16. Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University (2013). HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. CUP publisher.
    17. Schmitt, M. N. (2015). Foreword to Cyberwar: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts. Jens David Ohlin, Kevin Govern & Claire Finkelstein eds.
    18. Sharkey, N. (2012). Killing Made Easy’ in P Lin, K Abney and GA Bekey (eds), Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics. MIT Press.
    19. Thurnher, J. (2018). Feasible Precautions in Attack and Autonomous Weapons’ in W Heintschel von Heinegg, R Frau and T Singer (eds), Dehumanization of Warfare: Legal Implications of New Weapon Technologies. Springer.
    20. Walsh, T. (2018). 2062: The World that AI Made. La Trobe University Press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Boothby, B. (2013). How Will Weapons Reviews Address the Challenges Posed by New Technologies. Military Law and the law of War Review, (52), 38-59.
    3. Bowcott, O. (2015). UK Opposes International Ban on Developing Killer robots. The Guardian, London.
    4. Casey-Maslen, S. (2012). Pandora’s Box? Drone Strikes under Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and International Human Rights Law. International Review of the Red Cross, (94), 597-625.
    5. Ekelhof, M. (2018). Lifting the Fog of Targeting. Naval War College Review, 71(3), 1-34.
    6. Gettinger, D. (2018). Summary of Drone Spending in the FY 2019 Defense Budget Request. Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, (1), 1-12.
    7. Haner, J., & Garcia, D. (2019). The Artificial Intelligence Arms Race: Trends and World Leaders in Autonomous Weapons Development. Global Policy, 10(3), 331-337.
    8. ICRC (2006). A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Methods and Means of Warfare: Measures to Implement Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977. International Review of the Red Cross, (88).
    9. McFarland, T. (2015). Factors Shaping the Legal Implications of Increasingly Autonomous Military Systems. International Review of the Red Cross, (97), 1313-1339.
    10. Schmitt, M. (2013). Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A Reply to the Critics. Harvard National Security Journal, (5), 1-37.
    11. Sharkey, N. (2007). ‘Automated Killers and the Computing Profession’, Computer, 40 (11), 123-124.
    12. Sharkey, N. (2012). The Inevitability of Autonomous Robot Warfare. Int ’ l Rev. of the Red Cross, (94) – 886, 787-799.
    13. Ulgen, O. (2017). ‘Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons: Are We in Danger of Losing an “Elementary Consideration of Humanity”?’, Baltic Yearbook of International Law, (17), 1-19.
    14. Winter, E. (2020). The Compatibility of Autonomous Weapons with the Principle of Distinction in the Law of Armed Conflict. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 845-876.
    15. Winter, E. (2020). The Compatibility of the Use of Autonomous Weapons with the Principle of Precaution in the Law of Armed Conflict. Military Law and the Law of War Review, 58(2), 240-273.
    16. Winter, E. (2021). The Accountability of Software Developers for War Crimes Involving Autonomous Weapons: The Role of the Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 83(1), 51-86.

     

    C)Documents

    • Convention on Conventional Weapons (2016). ‘Report of the 2016 Informal Meeting of Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS)’ (10 June 2016) UN Doc CCW/CONF.V/2 Annex 14.
    1. Group of Governmental Experts (2019). ‘Report of the 2019 Session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems’ (25 September 2019) UN Doc CCW/GGE.1/2019/3.
    2. Group of Governmental Experts (2021). ‘Draft Report of the 2021 Session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems’ (8 December 2021).
    3. ICTY (2008). Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, et al., IT-04 – 84-T (April 3, 2008).
    4. Office of General Counsel (2015). Department of Defense Law of War Manual (US Department of Defense).
    5. United Nations Human Rights Council (2013). ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns’ (9 April 2013) UN Doc A/HRC/23/47.
    6. United States Department of Defense (2012). ‘Autonomy in Weapons Systems’ Directive Number 3000.09 (21 November 2012).
    7. US Department of Defense (2012). ‘No-Strike and the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology’ (2012) CJCSI 3160.01A D-A-7 https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/no-strike-collateral-damage-estimation/6632f2785aff5bba/full.pdf (last visited 16 November 2022).
    8. US Navy (2007). US Marine Corps and US Coastguard, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, US Naval War College.

     

    D)Websites

    1. Agrointelli (2020). ‘RoboWeedMaPS’, https://www.agrointelli.com/artificial-intelligence/ (last visited 16 November 2022).
    2. Airsoc (2020). ‘Where Hazards Lurk’, (Airsoc, January 2020), https://bit.ly/2Tzvcb5 (last visited 16 November 2022).
    3. Allen, Gregory (2019). Understanding China’s AI Strategy: Clues to Chinese Strategic Thinking on Artificial Intelligence and National Security (Center for a New American Security, 6 February 2019) https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/understanding-chinas-ai-strategy, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    4. Anderson, Kenneth and Waxman, Matthew (2013). Law and Ethics for Autonomous Weapon Systems: Why a Ban Won’t Work and How the Laws of War Can (Stanford University, The Hoover Institution 10 April 2013) https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1803/, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    5. Apps, Peter (2021). ‘New Era of Robot War May be Underway Unnoticed’, Reuters (London, 10 June 2021). https://www.reuters.com/article/apps-drones-idUSL5N2NS2E8
    6. BAE Systems (2021). ‘Taranis’ (BAE Systems 2021), https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    7. Baker, Deane-Peter and others (2020). ‘Introducing Guiding Principles for the Development and Use of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems’ E-International Relations, https://www.e-ir.info/2020/04/15/introducing-guiding-principles-for-the-development-and-use-of-lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems/, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    8. Bendett, Samuel (2017). ‘Red Robots Rising: Behind the Rapid Development of Russian Unmanned Military Systems’ The Strategy Bridge (12 December 2017), https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/12/12/red-robots-rising-behind-the-rapid-development-of-russian-unmanned-military-systems, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    9. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (2020). ‘Diplomatic Talks Re-Convene’ (Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, 25 September 2020), https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/news/diplomatic2020/, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    10. Chairperson of the Informal Meeting of Experts (2016). ‘Report of the 2016 Informal Meeting of Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS): Advanced Version’, https://docs-library.unoda.org/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons_Informal_Meeting_of_Experts_(2016)/ReportLAWS_2016_AdvancedVersion.pdf (last visited 16 Mars 2023).
    11. Jones, Isabelle (2021). ‘Historic Opportunity to Regulate Killer Robots Fails as a Handful of States Block the Majority’ (Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, 17 December 2021), https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/news/historic-opportunity-to-regulate-killer-robots-fails-as-a-handful-of-states-block-the-majority/#:~:text=Historic%20opportunity%20to%20regulate%20killer,of%20states%20block%20the%20majority&text=New%20hope%20for%20the%20start,2022%20as%20political%20leadership%20emerges, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    12. Jorgensen, Rasmus Nyholm (2019). RoboWeedMaPS: How Deep Learning Can Help Farmers Get Rid of Weeds (Aarhus University Department of Engineering, 14 January 2019), https://vision.eng.au.dk/roboweedmaps/, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    13. Maddox (2020). ‘PatScan Platform Detects Hidden Weapons, Chemicals, and Bombs’ (TechRepublic, 10 January 2020), https://www.techrepublic.com/videos/patscan-platform-detects-hidden-weapons-chemicals-and-bombs/ (last visited 16 November 2022).
    14. O’Connor, Tom (2017). ‘Russia’s Military Challenges U.S. and China by Building a Missile That Makes Its Own Decisions’ Newsweek (27 July 2017), https://www.newsweek.com/russia-military-challenge-us-china-missile-own-decisions-639926, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    15. Patriot One Technologies (2020). ‘About’ (Patriot One Technologies), https://patriot1tech.com/about/overview/, (last visited 16 November 2022).
    16. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2020). Military Expenditure Database (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2020), https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2022/world-military-expenditure-passes-2-trillion-first-time#:~:text=US%20military%20spending%20amounted%20to,3.5%20per%20cent%20in%202021. (last visited 16 November 2022).

     

    References in Persian:

    1. Eslami, R., & Ansari, N. (2017). The Application of Military Robots in the Armed Conflicts in the Light of Principles of Humanitarian Law. International law Review, (56), 139-162 (In Persian).
    2. Sharifi Tarazkouhi, H., & Sayyadnejad, M. (2020). Application of Fundamental Principles of International Humanitarian Law on Fully Autonomous Weapons as New Mean of War. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 50(Summer), 551-575 (In Persian).
    3. Mohseni Jayhani, F., & Tabatabiei, S. A. (2019). Autonomous Weapons and the Humanitarian Law Principles. Iranian Research letter of International Politics, 7(2), 265-286 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 3
Autumn 2024
Autumn 2024
Pages 1525-1548

  • Receive Date 24 December 2022
  • Revise Date 24 June 2023
  • Accept Date 06 May 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us