Autonomous Weapons Systems: Human Intervention in Autonomous Attacks Research Paper

The domain of military weaponry is seeing a significant rise in using autonomous weapons systems (AWS), a relatively new technological development. These systems sometimes called “killer robots” can identify and attack targets without help from a human operator.¹ There are moral, legal, and security issues associated with AWS because of its potential to inflict inadvertent harm to people and significantly undermine international law.² Such methods, if used in battle, might drastically alter the character of combat. Using such technologies in combat has the potential to alter the character of warfare radically.

Definition and Classification of AWS

AWS can be defined differently, but the essential component is no or partial human intervention is involved in the firing. AWS refers to a missile system that can identify and select a target for attack based on data from its sensors or computer analysis, requiring no human involvement in decision-making.³ There are two broad classifications of AWS, completely autonomous and semi-autonomous.⁴ In contrast to fully autonomous systems, semi-autonomous ones need human operators to initiate the process before proceeding independently. This paper aims to investigate those questions regarding applying international law to AWS.

Research Question and Hypothesis

What are the international legal ramifications of employing autonomous weapons systems?

Specific Research Questions

1. How does the lack of human control over autonomous weapons systems impact international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) compliance?
2. What legal standards for using force should apply to AWS to ensure they adhere to distinction, proportionality, and precautionary measure principles?
3. How can accountability and responsibility be established for using autonomous weapons systems, and what role should states and the international community play in ensuring compliance with legal and ethical norms?

Hypothesis

The deployment of AWS is hypothesized to raise serious ethical and legal concerns, necessitating the establishment of a solid international legal framework to guarantee that humanitarian and human rights legislation is upheld.

Purpose and Significance of the Study

This study focuses on the worldwide legal regulations that impact AWS’s production, distribution, and usage. In this article, a comprehensive examination of the current legal environment will be conducted, and it will identify areas of concern and viable solutions to achieve compliance with international law. The importance of this research is in the new insights it provides to the discussion around the morality and legality of AWS.

Methodology

The methodology used in this research paper aims to ensure credible data is collected. This study uses the doctrinal research approach, which investigates primary and secondary sources of legal authority, including conventions, treaties, and case law. In addition, the research technique includes a review of the relevant literature, articles, and studies. The OSCOLA citation system is used throughout the article to ensure that sources are always correctly cited.

Development of Autonomous Weapons Systems in the International Law

As the use of AWS presents ethical and legal problems regarding their conformity with IHL and IHRL, their advancement has been the topic of major discussion. The origins of AWS may be found in the early 20th century when governments first started to explore remote-controlled missile systems.⁵ However, due to major technological breakthroughs in recent years, completely autonomous weapons that can make judgments automatically without human interference have recently emerged. As a result, there is rising anxiety over the legal and moral repercussions of their further development and deployment in conflict.

Issues concerning the legality of using AWS in armed wars have been raised. Treaties already in place under international law, like the Geneva Conventions, regulate the use of weapons and techniques of combat, but they do not specifically cover the use of AWS.⁶ Thus, defining the legal consequences of using AWS in wars is important. To guarantee that AWS continues to be compatible with the standards of IHL and IHRL, the international community should negotiate to build an international legal structure to control their usage.

Legal Frameworks Regulating Autonomous Weapons Systems

This body of legislation governs how civil wars, including firearms, are to be conducted. Weapons must be used to minimize injury to civilians and other non-combatants per the core principles of IHL, such as proportionality, distinction, and necessity.⁷ Although AWS is not specifically addressed in IHL, it is widely accepted that they should follow the same rules as conventional weapons. Thus, AWS users and developers are responsible for guaranteeing that these missiles do not result in disproportionate civilian casualties and that their deployment adheres to the concepts of proportionality, distinction, and necessity.

International Human Rights Law (IHRL)

It is a body of legislation that outlines the protections and liberties to which all people are entitled under international law. Regarding AWS, IHRL is especially pertinent due to the serious human rights problems arising from its usage.⁸ For instance, the right to life is a universal human entitlement that must be safeguarded at all times, even during wartime. Thus, the creation and implementation of AWS must adhere to the same standards as those set out by IHRL, such as the principles of proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)

An international treaty called the CCW restricts the use of some military equipment during the war. It seeks to reduce suffering by restricting weapons with disproportionate or extremely lethal effects.⁹ Protocol IV was included in the CCW amendments to cover the usage of AWS.¹⁰ Protocol IV mandates that AWS be under human control to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties. Protocol IV is an essential step in restricting the creation and utilization of AWS in armed conflict, even though not all nations have accepted it.¹¹ These guidelines are essential to help limit the extermous use of AWS.

Perspectives on Autonomous Weapons Systems

Different people have divergent opinions regarding the use of AWS in wars and other activities. Proponents of AWS claim that lowering the number of soldiers sent into combat would greatly reduce the number of people who may be killed.¹² They claim that AWS might improve the effectiveness of military operations by facilitating quicker decision-making and more accurate targeting. AWS supporters argue that using such weapons would lessen the toll on civilian populations by reducing collateral damage and the length of wars. In addition, proponents of AWS development claim that it is essential for preserving military dominance in today’s more complicated and technologically sophisticated environment.

Opponents

On the other hand, those who disagree with using AWS emphasize the dangers they represent to human life and how they break the law. Some think AWS cannot make moral decisions or distinguish between soldiers and civilians, so they are inherently dangerous and prone to gratuitous damage.¹³ There are concerns that an arms race might result from the proliferation of AWS, with governments competing to create the deadliest and most sophisticated weapons possible.

Challenges Facing AWS

Ensuring AWS is safe and efficient is a technological problem. The success of AWS depends on its adaptability to different settings and situations, as well as on its ability to react properly to the occurrence of unforeseen problems.¹⁴ Furthermore, AWS has to be able to tell the difference between permissible targets and civilians, and it must be able to function within the bounds of IHL and other legal frameworks. AWS must be constantly tested and evaluated to reach these technological milestones.

Ethical and Legal Challenges

AWS raises major moral and legal questions due to the lack of human control. Concerns about the possibility of AWS violating basic human rights and the ethics of handing life and death decisions to robots are raised by its usage in armed combat.¹⁵ Moreover, current legal frameworks, like IHL and IHRL, may collide with the development and deployment of AWS. Moreover, there is always the chance that AWS may violate established ethical and legal guidelines, endangering innocent bystanders.

Accountability and Responsibility

Keeping people responsible and accountable for the activities of these weapons is one of the greatest difficulties confronting AWS. There is a risk that using an AWS will make the user feel emotionally removed from the weapon, which might result in the user not taking responsibility for the AWS’s actions.¹⁶ Moreover, if AWS inflicts injury to civilians or non-combatants, it may be hard to assign blame for the acts of these weapons because of AWS’s sophistication.

Assessment of the Compliance of AWS With International Law

The goal of international humanitarian law (IHL) aims to limit harm to civilians and soldiers during armed conflicts. The parties to a conflict must be able to tell the difference between soldiers and civilians.¹⁷ They must also ensure that their attacks are only aimed at military targets per the principle of distinction, which is a fundamental principle of IHL. This rule is crucial in reducing collateral damage and saving innocent lives. Its purpose is to protect civilians and other non-combatants from harm during war. The principle of distinction is central to international humanitarian law (IHL), and its strict observance is essential to guarantee the safety of civilians in times of war.

As another fundamental principle of IHL, the concept of proportionality mandates that all sides in a conflict take as much armed action as necessary to achieve their goals. This guiding concept seeks to reduce collateral damage and keep devastation to a minimum to protect people.¹⁸ It indicates that attacks should only be carried out when the projected military benefit justifies the risk to civilians and other non-combatants. Each side in a fight must protect people and civilian property as much as possible. Military activities must adhere to proportionality to avoid harming civilians or damaging their property.

The IHL, the precautionary principle, mandates that all sides in a conflict take all reasonable measures to protect civilians and combatants from injury. Under this tenet, non-combatants should be protected from injury by careful preparation and precautions.¹⁹ This indicates that instead of only reacting to the aftereffects of injury, conflicting parties should try to prevent it from happening in the first place. The precautionary principle states that all involved parties must weigh the possible consequences of military activities on civilians and other innocent bystanders against the information at hand and the practicality of implementing preventative actions. It is a must-follow rule for keeping people safe and reducing damage from the war.

Human Rights Law

Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognize the right to life as a basic human entitlement. It is an inalienable right that can never be taken away, not even during the war.²⁰ People have the right to life because they are protected from having their lives taken from them arbitrarily by the state or any other group. Civilians and soldiers alike have a right to life inside a state’s borders, and states must uphold this right at all times, even during armed conflicts.

IHR legislation recognizes the right to human dignity as a basic human right. It affirms that everyone, regardless of economic status, sex, color, or other defining characteristics, is valuable and worthy.²¹ The right to human dignity is foundational to other fundamental human rights, including the right to life, freedom from torture, and other kinds of cruelty. Troops and civilians have a right to be treated respectfully by all sides during military conflicts. Individuals’ emotional and physical well-being, as well as their ethnic and other identities, must be protected.

Concerns concerning the employment of autonomous weapons systems and its possible effects on the right to human dignity are warranted. When these technologies eliminate decision-making from the use of violence, they may devalue human life and dignity.²² It raises worries regarding human rights, integrity, and transparency in times of war. It is the responsibility of states to ensure that the employment of autonomous weapons systems does not violate any human rights guaranteed by international law. This involves ensuring there are humane supervision and accountability procedures, as well as performing thorough evaluations of the effect on human rights.

Legal Standards for the Use of Force

The two circumstances in which the use of force is legal under international law are self-defense and when specifically approved by the United Nations Security Council. According to necessity, every use of force must be appropriate and required to accomplish the stated goal. So, the use of force must be essential, and the amount of force used must not be more than is strictly required to accomplish the goal. Since the employment of AWS might be seen as an excessive use of force, the concept of necessity is fundamental in this situation. Hence, governments should check whether their use of AWS is required and appropriate to the threat at hand. It calls for a thorough evaluation of the circumstances, the possible consequences for innocent bystanders, and the alternatives for achieving the goal. Using force should only be done if required, and you should always check that your actions align with international law to ensure you’re not breaking any treaties.

Proportionality

According to proportionality, only an appropriate amount of force should be used to achieve an objective. It implies that the cost of using force should be proportional to the benefit gained militarily.²³ The goal of the concept of proportionality is to minimize collateral damage to innocent bystanders and to stop any devastation that is not essential. That’s why AWS must not be used in ways that endanger or destroy innocent people. States must carefully evaluate the possible consequences of autonomous weapons systems on civilians and other non-combatants, and any use of force must conform with international law. The concept of proportionality stresses the need to limit collateral damage and ensure that any use of force is commensurate with the threat posed.

Discrimination

All parties in a conflict must clearly distinguish between soldiers and civilians and restrict attacks to legitimate military targets only. Based on the concept of discrimination, violence may only be used to achieve legitimate military goals, and people and other innocent civilians must be shielded from any collateral damage.²⁴ This guiding concept is to protect people and alleviate suffering as much as possible.²⁵ There is a close relationship between the concept of discrimination and the doctrine of distinction in IHL.

Accountability and Responsibility

The responsibility and accountability of AWS hinge on the question of human control. According to the rules of international law, governments must maintain authority over the use of force, and those who resort to violence must take responsibility for their acts.²⁶ Regarding AWS, this implies that governments should ensure they have enough human control and supervision. The creation and deployment of AWS that are indiscriminate or cause undue damage require human control to guarantee that they are per international law and ethical norms. The need brings up significant concerns for human control, including the appropriateness of human involvement in the use of force and the nature of such involvement. While some believe that humans should maintain complete authority over the use of force, others have suggested that AWS be given authority over specific duties and choices. In the end, the problem of human control is essential to guarantee the accountability and responsibility of AWS and its use in conformity with international laws and ethical norms.

State Responsibility

States are responsible for ensuring that AWS is subject to proper legal and ethical requirements and that humans appropriately control them. Being accountable for using AWS and its development and deployment is essential to ensure compliance with IHL and human rights legislation.²⁷ In avoiding breaches of international law, states must guarantee that their armed forces and any other parties using force conform with such law. In AWS, this implies that nations must ensure that such systems are subject to proper legal and moral requirements and are employed per internationally recognized norms of morality. This involves preventing the employment of AWS in an indiscriminate and harmful way to innocent bystanders by implementing proper human monitoring and control. States must take necessary steps to guarantee that AWSs are subject to proper legal and ethical norms since, ultimately, they are responsible for their use.

Individual Criminal Responsibility

Accountability for using AWS relies on several factors, one of the most crucial of which is the imposition of criminal liability on individuals. Those who have perpetrated atrocities such as war crimes, genocide, or atrocities against people have a personal obligation to answer for their actions.²⁸ When people utilize AWS to conduct crimes, including attacks that do not abide by the rules of distinction or proportionality, they may face criminal liability. International law requires governments to guarantee that those who violate it face the consequences of their conduct. Ultimately, ensuring people face the consequences for their actions is crucial to ensuring that AWS is held to the right legal and moral requirements and is deployed appropriately.

United States Lethal AWS

The United States has been a leader in developing and deploying deadly AWS. The human pilot nation’s military has already used many robotic systems. One example is the MQ-9 Reaper drone, which can navigate to its target without human interaction.²⁹ The United States Navy has also built aerial missile called the X-47B that can launch from and land aboard aircraft carriers without the need.³⁰ The United States’ decision to use deadly AWS has raised several moral and legal questions. Concerns have been raised that deploying such technologies might threaten the principles of distinction and proportionality, leading to a rise in civilian fatalities. The absence of human oversight and the possibility of mistakes or malfunctions have been mentioned as issues by others. Besides these worries, the United States has been devoting money to research and development for AWS, which will almost certainly play a larger role in future U.S. military activities.

Israel’s Harpy Loitering Munitions

Israel has been at the forefront of creating and employing AWS, especially loitering munitions. For example, the Harpy system is programmed to fly to a certain location, loiter until it senses an enemy radar signal, and then launch an airstrike on the radar facility.³¹ The Harpy may be set to attack numerous targets at once and remain in the air for several hours. Concerns have been voiced about Israel’s use of Harpy loitering bombs, both from a legal and ethical standpoint. The system’s capacity to strike targets without human interaction raises concerns regarding discrimination and the possibility of accidental civilian fatalities. Moreover, it has been argued that loitering bombs makes it harder to tell if an assault is preemptive or reactive by blurring the line between defensive and offensive capabilities. Besides these reservations, Israel has kept using and improving its Harpy and other AWS.

South Korea’s AWS Development

Meanwhile, South Korea has been working on AWS, which it plans to use for border defense and monitoring. The South Korean military unveiled the SGR-A1 artificial intelligence system.³² This apparatus monitors the border area between North and South Korea and identifies unauthorized visitors. Radars, thermal imaging cameras, and other detectors have been placed in the SGR-A1 to locate, identify, and follow possible threats. Although the system may identify and hit targets automatically without human assistance, the South Korean government has stressed that it will not function autonomously and that human operators would control its activities. However, questions have been raised concerning the likelihood of technological mistakes or breakdowns and the accidental escalation or use of force.

China’s Development of AWS

China has been spending a lot on research and development for AWS and other forms of unmanned military hardware. It has shown its prowess in this field in recent years by deploying various autonomous systems for various uses, including military and civilian. The CH-4 UAV AWS was developed and utilized by China and has been used in some wars, including those in Syria and Iraq.³³ The CH-4 can fly independently for long periods and is armed with various sensors and weaponry, including air-to-ground weapons.³⁴ The AWS can be used in various contexts, including border security and surveillance. Several experts and observers are worried about China’s progress in developing AWS because of the potential for mistakes or unexpected effects. China’s creation and use of AWS pose serious ethical and legal problems and highlight the need for continuing international discourse and control in this domain.

Future of AWS in International Law

AWS creation and use pose serious problems for current legal regimes. There will be a need to revise IHL and IHRL to account for the specifics and potential dangers of autonomous weapons systems.³⁵ Clear rules for creating, implementing, and using such systems are needed, and the international community must work together to create them. These new frameworks should uphold existing legal concepts and requirements, such as distinction, proportionality, and precaution. In guaranteeing that the creation and use of AWS do not result in breaches of international law, legal structures should address concerns like responsibility, accountability, and transparency.

The Role of the International Community

The international community has to discuss AWS’s future as its research and deployment continue to increase. The creation and implementation of these systems are best governed by a set of shared aims and principles that governments should work together to define.³⁶ Regulation of the production, distribution, and use of AWS may benefit from the international community’s efforts. The United Nations is one international body that may help mobilize the world community to address this problem. It has a body, the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal AWS, whose duty is to investigate the legal, moral, and technological concerns these weapons raise and provide policy recommendations. In addition, non-governmental organizations may help spread the word about the risks posed by AWS and push for international standards and rules to control their production and deployment.

The Role of Technology

As technology advances at an unprecedented rate, the possibility of new forms of weaponry is growing. Although employing machine learning and artificial has the potential to transform the nature of warfare, it also raises significant concerns for the international community. Serious ethical, legal and practical problems arise from implementing these technologies in AWS.³⁷ Global legal structures must adapt to the rapid rate of technological change. The international community must establish guidelines and rules for the creation and use of AWS. To ensure that these technological advances are developed according to ethical and legal standards, there will need to be a concerted effort by countries, international bodies, and other stakeholders.

Conclusion

This research examined the moral and societal concerns of AWS. Differentiation, proportionality, and preventive measures concerning IHL and IHRL were examined. Accountability and responsibility for AWS creation and use under the law were scrutinized. Case studies in the United States, Israel, South Korea, and China revealed substantial legal and ethical issues necessitating a global legal framework. There is a shortage of empirical evidence on AWS usage in armed situations, and the scope of the case studies is relatively small. Another limitation is that the political and strategic reasons driving AWS development and deployment were missed in the study’s emphasis on legal and ethical problems. Finally, studies should investigate whether international standards and guidelines on AWS may be developed to promote better openness, accountability, and responsibility.

Bibliography

Congressional Research Service, ‘Defense Primer: U.S Policy on Lethal Autonomous Weapon System’ (2022)

D’Urso S, ‘Let’s Talk about the Israel Air Industries Loitering Munitions and What They’re Capable Of’ (The Aviationist) Web.

Docherty B, ‘The Need for and Elements of a New Treaty on Fully Autonomous Weapons‘ (Human Rights Watch) Web.

Emery JR, ‘Historical and Contemporary Reflections on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems‘ (E-International Relations) Web.

Geiß R, ‘State Control over the Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems: Risk Management and State Responsibility’ [2020] Military Operations and the Notion of Control Under International Law 439

International Humanitarian Law Databases, ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility‘ Web.

Kapelańska-Pręgowska J, ‘Freedom from Nuclear Weapons? IHRL and IHL Perspective vs the State-Centred Approach’ [2020] The Age of Human Rights Journal 137

Kwik J, ‘Mitigating the Risk of Autonomous Weapon Misuse by Insurgent Groups’ (2022) 12 Laws 1

Leys N, ‘Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Crises‘ (2018) 12 Strategic Studies Quarterly 48. Web.

McFarland T, ‘Minimum Levels of Human Intervention in Autonomous Attacks’ (2022) 27 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 387

Newton S, ‘The Excessive Use of Force against Blacks in the United States of America’ (2018) 22 The International Journal of Human Rights 1067

Sharkey A, ‘Autonomous Weapons Systems, Killer Robots and Human Dignity’ (2018) 21 Ethics and Information Technology

Shayotovich E, ‘Everything We Know about Samsung’s Machine Gun Robots‘ (Slash Gear) Web.

Shereshevsky Y, ‘International Humanitarian Law-Making and New Military Technologies’ (International Review of the Red Cross2022) Web.

Trevithick J, ‘Only One of Iraq’s Chinese CH-4B Drones Is Mission Capable as Other Buyers Give up on Them‘ (The Drive) Web.

United Nations, ‘The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons‘ Web.

Zając M, ‘AWS Compliance with the Ethical Principle of Proportionality: Three Possible Solutions’ (2023) 25 Ethics and Information Technology 1

Footnotes

1. Amanda Sharkey, ‘Autonomous Weapons Systems, Killer Robots and Human Dignity’ (2018) 21 Ethics and Information Technology.
2. Ibid
3. Tim McFarland, ‘Minimum Levels of Human Intervention in Autonomous Attacks’ (2022) 27 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 387.
4. Ibid
5. John R Emery, ‘Historical and Contemporary Reflections on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems’ (E-International Relations) Web.
6. Bonnie Docherty, ‘The Need for and Elements of a New Treaty on Fully Autonomous Weapons’ (Human Rights Watch) Web.
7. Yahli Shereshevsky, ‘International Humanitarian Law-Making and New Military Technologies’ (International Review of the Red Cross 2022) Web.
8. Julia Kapelańska-Pręgowska, ‘Freedom from Nuclear Weapons? IHRL and IHL Perspective vs the State-Centred Approach’ [2020] The Age of Human Rights Journal 137.
9. United Nations, ‘The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’ Web.
10. Ibid
11. United Nations, ‘The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’ Web.
12. Maciek Zając, ‘AWS Compliance with the Ethical Principle of Proportionality: Three Possible Solutions’ (2023) 25 Ethics and Information Technology 1.
13. Ibid
14. Amanda (n 1)
15. Jonathan Kwik, ‘Mitigating the Risk of Autonomous Weapon Misuse by Insurgent Groups’ (2022) 12 Laws 1.
16. Maciek Zając (n 13)
17. Yahli Shereshevsky (n 7)
18. Julia Kapelańska-Pręgowska (n 8)
19. Ibid
20. Ibid
21. Ibid
22. Ibid
23. Stefan Newton, ‘The Excessive Use of Force against Blacks in the United States of America’ (2018) 22 The International Journal of Human Rights 1067.
24. Ibid
25. Ibid
26. Julia Kapelańska-Pręgowska (n 8)
27. Robin Geiß, ‘State Control over the Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems: Risk Management and State Responsibility’ [2020] Military Operations and the Notion of Control Under International Law 439.
28. International Humanitarian Law Databases, ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility’ Web.
29. Congressional Research Service, ‘Defense Primer: U.S Policy on Lethal Autonomous Weapon System’ (2022).
30. Ibid
31. Stefano D’Urso, ‘Let’s Talk about the Israel Air Industries Loitering Munitions and What They’re Capable Of’ (The Aviationist) Web.
32. Eli Shayotovich, ‘Everything We Know about Samsung’s Machine Gun Robots’ (Slash Gear) Web.
33. Joseph Trevithick, ‘Only One of Iraq’s Chinese CH-4B Drones Is Mission Capable as Other Buyers Give up on Them’ (The Drive) Web.
34. Ibid
35. Julia Kapelańska-Pręgowska (n 8)
36. Nathan Leys, ‘Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Crises’ (2018) 12 Strategic Studies Quarterly 48. Web.
37. Julia Kapelańska-Pręgowska (n 8)