scholarly journals Autonomous Weapon Systems In International Humanitarian Law – Simply Just Another Weapon System

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Philippus Jacobus Jooste

<p>This paper reviews the arguments made by the opponents of the utilization at all of so called autonomous weapons (killer robots), on the basis of alleged inherent non compliance with certain cardinal principles of IHL, against the argument that said weapons or systems, and their use, can be satisfactorily accommodated under existing IHL. It gives an overview of the issues identified by the opponents and the main arguments made in favour of banning autonomous weapons. The author looks at the characteristics of two weapon systems and concludes there are already fully autonomous weapon systems in non contentious use. The author submits that the concerns of the banning authors are not rational, the purported distinctions made between certain weapon systems cannot factually and consistently be maintained and are based on the averred existence of categories of weapons that do not exist. Finally, the author argues that the opponents’ concerns and arguments are in the main and based on the normal uncertainties, inherent in all factually to be determined situations and also on slippery slope reasoning. The author emphasises the established rules of IHL and opines that the same are adequate to regulate the so called autonomous weapons and weapon systems and any liability arising from their use.</p>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Philippus Jacobus Jooste

<p>This paper reviews the arguments made by the opponents of the utilization at all of so called autonomous weapons (killer robots), on the basis of alleged inherent non compliance with certain cardinal principles of IHL, against the argument that said weapons or systems, and their use, can be satisfactorily accommodated under existing IHL. It gives an overview of the issues identified by the opponents and the main arguments made in favour of banning autonomous weapons. The author looks at the characteristics of two weapon systems and concludes there are already fully autonomous weapon systems in non contentious use. The author submits that the concerns of the banning authors are not rational, the purported distinctions made between certain weapon systems cannot factually and consistently be maintained and are based on the averred existence of categories of weapons that do not exist. Finally, the author argues that the opponents’ concerns and arguments are in the main and based on the normal uncertainties, inherent in all factually to be determined situations and also on slippery slope reasoning. The author emphasises the established rules of IHL and opines that the same are adequate to regulate the so called autonomous weapons and weapon systems and any liability arising from their use.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-368
Author(s):  
Yordan Gunawan ◽  
Mohammad Haris Aulawi ◽  
Andi Rizal Ramadhan

AbstractWar and Technological development have been linked for centuries. States and military leaders have been searching for weapon systems that will minimize the risk for the soldier, as technology-enabled the destruction of combatants and non-combatants at levels not seen previously in human history. Autonomous Weapon Systems are not specifically regulated by IHL treaties. On the use of Autonomous Weapons Systems, there are three main principles that must be considered, namely principle of Distinction, Proportionality and Unnecessary Suffering. Autonomous weapon systems may provide a military advantage because those systems are able to operate free of human emotions and bias which cloud judgement. In addition, these weapon systems can operate free from the needs for self-preservation and are able to make decisions a lot quicker. Therefore, it is important to examine who, in this case, the commander can be held responsible when an Autonomous Weapon System will commit a crime.Keywords: Command Responsibility, Autonomous Weapons Systems, International Humanitarian Law AbstrakPerang dan perkembangan Teknologi telah dikaitkan selama berabad-abad. Para pemimpin negara dan militer telah mencari sistem senjata yang akan meminimalkan risiko bagi prajurit itu, karena teknologi memungkinkan penghancuran para pejuang dan non-pejuang pada tingkat yang tidak terlihat sebelumnya dalam sejarah manusia. Sistem Senjata Otonom tidak secara spesifik diatur oleh perjanjian IHL. Pada penggunaan Sistem Senjata Otonom, ada tiga prinsip utama yang harus diperhatikan, yaitu prinsip Perbedaan, Proportionalitas, dan Penderitaan yang Tidak Perlu. Sistem senjata otonom dapat memberikan keuntungan militer karena sistem tersebut dapat beroperasi bebas dari emosi manusia dan bias yang menghakimi. Selain itu, sistem senjata ini dapat beroperasi bebas dari kebutuhan untuk pelestarian diri dan mampu membuat keputusan lebih cepat. Oleh karena itu, penting untuk memeriksa siapa, dalam hal ini, komandan dapat bertanggung jawab ketika Sistem Senjata Otonom akan melakukan kejahatan.Kata kunci: Tanggung Jawab Komando, Sistem Senjata Otonom, Hukum Humaniter Internasional АннотацияВойна и развитие технологий были связаны на протяжении веков. Государственные и военные лидеры искали системы вооружений, которые минимизируют риски для солдат, потому что технология позволяет уничтожать боевиков и не боeвиков на уровне, невиданном ранее в истории человечества. Автономный Комплекс Вооружения конкретно не регулируется соглашением о МГП (Международное Гуманитарное Право). При использовании Автономного Комплекса Вооружения необходимо учитывать три основных принципа, а именно: принцип различия, пропорциональность и потери среди мирного населения. Автономный Комплекс Вооружения может обеспечить военные преимущества, поскольку он может функционировать без человеческих эмоций и субъективных предубеждений. Кроме того, эта система вооружения может работать без необходимости самосохранения и может принимать решения быстрее. Поэтому важно выяснить, кто, в этом случае, командир, может нести ответственность, когда Автономный Комплекс Вооружения совершит преступление. Ключевые слова: Командная ответственность, Автономный Комплекс Вооружения, Международное Гуманитарное Право 


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Maskun Maskun ◽  
Rafika Nurul Hamdani Ramli

Autonomous Weapon System (AWS) is still discussed and is considered to the principle of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) particular the principle of distinction and proportionality. In line with moral and ethical issues, some experts and global citizens agree that AWS will likely to distract moral and ethical on a battlefield and are never able to replace human’s feeling. Human beings are responsible over AWS because there is no such a fully autonomous weapons exist. It is always a human commander behind the actions. To bridge the situation on discussion of AWS, a new treaty should be created in order to anticipate further violation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 276-293
Author(s):  
Andreas Wilia ◽  
Diajeng Wulan Christianti

AbstractAutonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) has been developed as an alternative weapon system in the battlefield. It has a fundamental difference with other weapons systems which lies in decision making carried out without human intervention. AWS is able to make decisions about life and death and it has been legally, morally and ethically challenged since it has potential to distract moral and ethical on the battlefield. However, as a smart weapon, it gives a significant advantage since it can be deployed in very dangerous areas for the purpose of self-defense in critical situations. This article argues that AWS is still a conventional weapon and cannot be absolutely prohibited even if it is deemed as a vulnerable and destructive weapon which potentially violates international humanitarian law (IHL). AWS is still fully compliant with IHL basic principles for as long as there is a sufficient legal basis that provides the limit and legality of the use of AWS. Accordingly, this article also suggests that the future AWS regulation should be followed by appropriate technical provision on the development, production, ownership, transfer and use in armed conflict.Keywords: Armed Conflict, Autonomous Weapon Systems, International Humanitarian Law, Weapon Regulation   AbstrakSistem Senjata Otonom (AWS) telah dikembangkan sebagai sistem senjata alternatif dalam pertempuran dan memiliki perbedaan fundamental dengan sistem senjata lain yaitu, keputusan yang diambil tanpa adanya intervensi manusia. AWS mampu untuk memutuskan hidup dan matinya target kombatan sehingga penggunaannya ditentang baik secara hukum, moral, dan etika karena berpotensi merusak moral dan etika dalam peperangan. Namun demikian, sebagai senjata modern, AWS memberikan keuntungan yang nyata mengingat AWS dapat ditempatkan di daerah yang berbahaya bagi manusia untuk alasan bela diri dalam situasi yang sangat sulit. Penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa AWS tetap merupakan senjata konvensional yang penggunaannya tidak dapat dilarang secara absolut sekalipun berpotensi menjadi senjata penghancur yang dapat melanggar hukum humaniter. AWS mampu untuk mematuhi prinsip-prinsip dasar hukum humaniter sepanjang pengaturan dan pembatasan penggunaannya diatur dalam instrumen hukum humaniter yang memadai yang hingga saat ini belum tersedia. Dengan demikian, penelitian ini menyarankan bahwa aturan AWS masa depan harus juga mencakup aturan-aturan teknis tentang pengembangan, pembuatan, kepemilikan, pengalihan serta penggunaan dari AWS dalam sengketa bersenjata. Kata Kunci: Aturan Senjata, Konflik Bersenjata, Hukum Humaniter Internasional, Sistem Senjata Otonom


2021 ◽  
pp. 237-258
Author(s):  
S. Kate Devitt

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-131
Author(s):  
Sai Venkatesh

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. 


1988 ◽  
Vol 32 (18) ◽  
pp. 1251-1255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Potempa ◽  
Frank C. Gentner

Manpower, personnel, training and safety (MPTS) analysis is currently inconsistent and incomplete in its application to Air Force acquisitions. While many problems are managerial, MPTS analysis also suffers from a lack of adequate tools and data bases to analyze weapon system design, project MPTS requirements and suggest trade-offs. These problems are particularly acute in the early phases of the weapon system acquisition process (WSAP), making it difficult to influence design during this critical period. To improve MPTS analysis, a study is being conducted by the Air Force to define a comprehensive and integrated MPTS analytic system for use in the WSAP. The study is identifying what MPTS decisions need to be made in the WSAP, when they need to be made, and how they are interrelated. Current capabilities are then being determined by analyzing the tools and data bases available to support each MPTS decision. The analysis will identify needed improvements to existing tools and data bases and whether new ones need to be developed. This paper discusses the requirement for an improved MPTS system and then describes a variety of managerial and technical initiatives being undertaken to satisfy the requirement. The last section identifies the desired characteristics of an effective MPTS system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document