Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjølv Egeland

Robots formerly belonged to the realm of fiction, but are now becoming a practical issue for the disarmament community. While some believe that military robots could act more ethically than human soldiers on the battlefield, others have countered that such a scenario is highly unlikely, and that the technology in question should be banned. Autonomous weapon systems will be unable to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, and their use will lower the threshold to resort to the use of force, they argue. In this article, I take a bird’s-eye look at the international humanitarian law (ihl) pertaining to autonomous weapon systems. My argument is twofold: First, I argue that it is indeed difficult to imagine how ihl could be implemented by algorithm. The rules of distinction, proportionality, and precautions all call for what are arguably unquantifiable decisions. Second, I argue that existing humanitarian law in many ways presupposes responsible human agency.

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 619-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margarita H. Petrova

AbstractThe article examines the roles of NGOs in banning cluster munitions that resulted in the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions and the campaign against landmines in the 1990s. It argues that NGOs have managed to move questions about the use of force from the closed decision-making sphere of military commanders and arms control diplomats into open public debate. Thus NGOs have simultaneously desecuritised the use of force by states, securitised certain weapons technologies, and made human beings the referent object of security. This has marked a shift from state security and strategic disarmament to human security and humanitarian disarmament, without fundamentally challenging the laws of war. However, in contrast to realist views that only militarily useless weapons ever get banned and radical critical perspectives that see new legal regimes as legitimating war and US hegemony, I argue that NGOs have engaged in immanent critique of military arguments and practices based on prevailing principles of international humanitarian law. The resulting weapon ban treaties have both restrained US policy and undermined its legitimacy. The article explores the discursive choices that underpinned the remaking of the security agenda by NGOs and their role as de/securitising actors and emancipatory agents of change.


1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (270) ◽  
pp. 177-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamen Sachariew

The ultimate purpose of dissemination of and compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) is to mitigate the effects of armed conflict and provide the best possible protection for its victims. At the same time, IHL fosters wider acceptance of the ideals of humanity and peace between peoples. The relationship between IHL, the struggle for peace and the prohibition of the use of force is becoming ever clearer as the realization grows that lasting peace, development and peaceful international co-operation can be achieved only on the basis of compliance with international law and respect for human life and dignity.


Author(s):  
Casey-Maslen Stuart ◽  
Clapham Andrew ◽  
Giacca Gilles ◽  
Parker Sarah

This chapter discusses the eight principles of the ATT. Article 5(1) requires parties to implement the treaty while bearing in mind the principles set out. The principles cover the following issues: the right of states to self-defence; the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; non-intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state; respecting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law and human rights; the responsibility of states to regulate international trade in conventional arms and prevent diversion and to establish national control systems; respect for the interests of states to acquire, produce, export, import, and transfer conventional arms; and implementation of the ATT in a consistent, objective, and non-discriminatory manner.


Author(s):  
William A. Schabas

This chapter examines the rules and principles of the international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the right to life. It discusses the origins and scope of the right to life and clarifies that the protection provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not cease in times of war. It also considers some widely-recognized exceptions to or limitations upon the right to life, including killing in self-defence and the lethal use of force by the authorities in order to prevent crime. This chapter argues that while resorting to armed force may be necessary to prevent human rights violations, its benefits should not be exaggerated.


Author(s):  
Fleck Dieter

This chapter provides an overview of the law of non-international armed conflicts and its progressive development. The law of armed conflict, as it has developed in the last part of the nineteenth and the first part of the twentieth century, deals predominantly with wars between states. Its basic principles and rules are, however, likewise relevant for non-international armed conflicts: in all armed conflicts, elementary considerations of humanity must be respected under all circumstances, in order to protect victims, to reduce human sufferings, and to minimize damages to objects vital for survival. Therefore, the parties to the conflict do not have an unlimited choice of the means and methods of conducting hostilities, nor of selecting the targets to be attacked, and they must protect the victims from the effects and consequences of war. This concept is reflected in the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, to be respected by all and, while taking military necessity into account, limiting the use of force for humanitarian reasons. Parties to the conflict respecting these principles and rules are considered as respecting the international order, while those seriously violating them will commit internationally wrongful acts and perpetrators are liable to punishment.


1. The use of weapons in outer space – be it through kinetic or non-kinetic means, using space- and/or ground-based weapon systems – could have significant impacts on civilians on earth. This is because technology enabled by space systems permeates most aspects of civilian life, making the potential consequences of attacks on space systems a matter of humanitarian concern.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 111-114
Author(s):  
Siobhán Wills

In this Article, I argue that there is inconsistency and confusion at the heart of UN policy on use of deadly force by peacekeepers and that this lack of clarity has resulted in deaths and injuries to people that pose no threat to UN forces or anybody else and have not engaged in any violent activities or indeed in any type of crime. Such deaths and injuries are likely to recur if the United Nations continues to use the same rules of engagement for law enforcement operations as it does for operations aimed at curtailing violence by parties to an armed conflict. The problem would be greatly mitigated if the United Nations were to formally commit to applying customary international human rights law standards on use of force in all circumstances except those to which international humanitarian law applies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (886) ◽  
pp. 483-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Backstrom ◽  
Ian Henderson

AbstractThe increasing complexity of weapon systems requires an interdisciplinary approach to the conduct of weapon reviews. Developers need to be aware of international humanitarian law principles that apply to the employment of weapons. Lawyers need to be aware of how a weapon will be operationally employed and use this knowledge to help formulate meaningful operational guidelines in light of any technological issues identified in relation to international humanitarian law. As the details of a weapon's capability are often highly classified and compartmentalized, lawyers, engineers, and operators need to work cooperatively and imaginatively to overcome security classification and compartmental access limitations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-280
Author(s):  
Gregor Noll

Is there a Nordic approach to international law? I argue that a substantive Nordic approach to international law is absent today, and explore why the question of a Nordic international law would emerge today and how the craving for Nordic identity might be overcome. I look into select evidence relating to the use of force, to international recognition and to international humanitarian law to show the material vacuity of contemporary Nordic cooperation in key areas. The epoch of Nordic legal entrepreneurialism taking off during 19th century, Nordic international law is now ending, and non-alignment with it. This brings me to ask how the melancholic longing for a ‘Nordic international law’ might be transgressed. Here, Andrei Tarkovsky’s Nostalghia of 1983 comes in. It confronts us with the question of what imperatives – legal or other – grow from our melancholia for homelands and persons no longer with us.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document