scholarly journals No Right To Mercy

Etyka ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maciej Zając
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Essential Value ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Considerable Controversy

Arguments from human dignity feature prominently in the Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWS) moral feasibility debate, even though their exists considerable controversy over their role and soundness and the notion of dignity remains under-defined. Drawing on the work of Dieter Birnbacher, I fix the sub-discourse as referring to the essential value of human persons in general, and to postulated moral rights of combatants not covered within the existing paradigm of the International Humanitarian Law in particular. I then review and critique dignity-based arguments against LAWS: argument from faulty targeting process, argument from objectification, argument from underappreciation of the value of human life and the argument from the absence of mercy. I conclude that the argument from the absence of mercy is the only dignity-based argument that is both valid and irreducible to another class of arguments within the debate, and that it offers insufficient justification for a global ban on LAWS.

scholarly journals Normative Epistemology for Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

2021 ◽  
pp. 237-258
Author(s):  
S. Kate Devitt
Keyword(s):  
Autonomous Systems ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Ethical Justification ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Development Evaluation ◽  
Normative Epistemology ◽  
Weapons Systems

The rise of human-information systems, cybernetic systems, and increasingly autonomous systems requires the application of epistemic frameworks to machines and human-machine teams. This chapter discusses higher-order design principles to guide the design, evaluation, deployment, and iteration of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) based on epistemic models. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Epistemic models consider the role of accuracy, likelihoods, beliefs, competencies, capabilities, context, and luck in the justification of actions and the attribution of knowledge. The aim is not to provide ethical justification for or against LAWS, but to illustrate how epistemological frameworks can be used in conjunction with moral apparatus to guide the design and deployment of future systems. The models discussed in this chapter aim to make Article 36 reviews of LAWS systematic, expedient, and evaluable. A Bayesian virtue epistemology is proposed to enable justified actions under uncertainty that meet the requirements of the Laws of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law. Epistemic concepts can provide some of the apparatus to meet explainability and transparency requirements in the development, evaluation, deployment, and review of ethical AI.

States' entitlement to take action to enforce international humanitarian law

1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (270) ◽  
pp. 177-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamen Sachariew
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Lasting Peace ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Ultimate Purpose

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.

Before the Abyss: Reshaping International Humanitarian Law to Suit the Ends of Power

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eitan Diamond
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Strategy ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Fundamental Structure ◽  
Political Principle ◽  
Structural Principles ◽  
Lesser Evil

In the increasingly legalized landscape in which armed conflicts are now waged, international humanitarian law has become an integral and ever more central part of military strategy. States can and do use it to gain advantage over their adversaries, but must also contend with challenges that arise when it is wielded against them. In their efforts to respond to these challenges official and unofficial advocates of State powers have advanced modes of argumentation which question the fundamental structure of international humanitarian law. This Article takes issue with one such argument that mobilizes the theologico-political principle of the “lesser-evil” to conclude that acts which are absolutely prohibited under international humanitarian law should nevertheless be deemed legally permissible when their foreseen consequences are less harmful than lawful alternatives. The Article demonstrates that this argument threatens to blur IHL's sharp boundaries and expand its zone's of elasticity thereby undermining its structural principles. More specifically, the Article maintains that the argument in question rests on exaggerated faith in the judgment of belligerent parties, that it fails on its own utilitarian logic and that it ignores deontological reasoning fundamental to international humanitarian law. The Article contends that accepting this argument would severely compromise IHL's capacity to limit violence and preserve human dignity and therefore advocates that it be rejected.

scholarly journals Legality of Autonomous Weapons Systems and their Implications on Existing International Humanitarian Law Principles Approach: New Haven School of International Legal Theory

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-131
Author(s):  
Sai Venkatesh
Keyword(s):  
Legal Theory ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
World Peace ◽  
Ideal Solution ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
New Haven ◽  
Legal Thought ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
Weapons Systems

The objective of this paper is to legally analyze the issues surrounding the use and regulation of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) and their implications on the existing principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The research and mode of approach towards this issue will be directed in consonance with the New Haven School of International Legal Thought. The paper will begin by defining the terms ‘AWS’ and ‘New Haven school’ for the purpose of this study. Subsequently, it will highlight the various notable issues of contention with relation to existing principles of IHL. In doing so, the paper will earmark these issues under the scope of the New Haven method and conclude exclusively to that school of international thought.  In its conclusion, this paper will emphasize the need for AWS in today’s world, and how regulation, rather than prohibition, would be the ideal solution towards addressing the conundrum of their legality. It will also distinguish the key elements of the New Haven school and how these were directly incorporated into this paper so as to arrive at the predicated resolution, emphasizing the need for legality of AWS to attain world peace and order. 

Evasion, Engagement, and the Laws of War

Wars of Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 243-256
Author(s):  
Tanisha M. Fazal
Keyword(s):  
Military Personnel ◽  
International Community ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Cyber Warfare ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Perverse Incentives ◽  
Good Behaviour

This concluding chapter provides a brief summary of the book, but focuses on three policy issues facing international humanitarian lawmakers today. First, drawing on evidence provided in Chapter 2, this chapter asks whether military personnel have been participating in ongoing debates over the laws of war regarding cyber warfare and lethal autonomous weapons systems. Second, the chapter draws out “the secessionists’ dilemma,” wherein secessionists are told by the international community to behave a certain way, but are rarely rewarded for good behaviour. And third, the chapter delves into the book’s contrasting findings regarding the declining use of peace treaties in interstate war and their increasing use in civil war. The chapter concludes by arguing that the development of international humanitarian law, while generating some perverse incentives, is likely a net good, but that future caution is warranted.

The development and use of autonomous weapons systems regulations in armed conflicts by the international humanitarian law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natella Sinyaeva
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Weapons Systems

The article examines the issues of possible control, from the standpoint of international humanitarian law, at the stage of developing autonomous weapons systems. The author notes that the development of autonomous weapons systems raises serious social and ethical concerns. He considers the existing norms and principles of international humanitarian law applying to control the development and use of such systems. The author considers autonomous weapons systems from the perspective of the distinction between civilians (civilian targets) and combatants (military objects), that means precautions in attack and proportionality.

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

2019 ◽  
pp. 69-96
Author(s):  
Laura A. Dickinson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Weapons Systems

The rise of lethal autonomous weapons systems creates numerous problems for legal regimes meant to ensure public accountability for unlawful uses of force. In particular, international humanitarian law has long relied on enforcement through individual criminal responsibility, which is complicated by autonomous weapons that fragment responsibility for decisions to deploy violence. Accordingly, there may often be no human being with the requisite level of intent to trigger individual responsibility under existing doctrine. In response, perhaps international criminal law could be reformed to account for such issues. Or, in the alternative, greater emphasis on other forms of accountability, such as tort liability and state responsibility might be useful supplements. Another form of accountability that often gets overlooked or dismissed as inconsequential is one that could be termed “administrative accountability.” This chapter provides a close look at this type of accountability and its potential.

Proportionality and Autonomous Weapons Systems

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen van den Boogaard
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Civilian Population ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Proportionality Rule ◽  
Weapons Systems

Given the swift technologic development, it may be expected that the availability of the first truly autonomous weapons systems is fast approaching. Once they are deployed, these weapons will use artificial intelligence to select and attack targets without further human intervention. Autonomous weapons systems raise the question of whether they could comply with international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality is sometimes cited as an important obstacle to the use of autonomous weapons systems in accordance with the law. This article assesses the question whether the rule on proportionality in attacks would preclude the legal use of autonomous weapons. It analyses aspects of the proportionality rule that would militate against the use of autonomous weapons systems and aspects that would appear to benefit the protection of the civilian population if such weapons systems were used. The article concludes that autonomous weapons are unable to make proportionality assessments on an operational or strategic level on their own, and that humans should not be expected to be completely absent from the battlefield in the near future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document