1. What are Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWSs)?

The International Committee of the Red Cross defines autonomous weapon systems as: “Any weapon system with autonomy in its critical functions – that is, a weapon system that can select (search for, detect, identify, track or select) and attack (use force against, neutralize, damage or destroy) targets without human intervention.”[1]Human Rights Watch differentiates between human in/on/out of the loop systems. Human in the loop systems have been present for a long time and known as targeted killing. They refer to systems that are directed by human operators remotely. Human in the loop systems can operate without human input but specific information, such as the coordinates of a specific target, is programmed prior to or during the deployment. Finally, human out of the loop systems require no human input or intervention. They operate independently and engage targets by making discretionary decisions.[2] These systems are often referred to as fully autonomous weapons and killer robots.

This paper will make an introduction to the vast discussion on the legality of fully autonomous weapons. As of today, they are not deployed and they do not exist, however, the closest example would be SGR-A1, which was designed to replace human-oriented guarding along the Korean Demilitarized Zone.[3] SGR-A1 has a kill switch, which means it can be disactivated by human intervention. Therefore, it is not “fully” autonomous, yet a close example which is worth mentioning with its ability to select and attack autonomously.

2. Are Autonomous Weapons legal?

There are contradicting opinions – both in doctrine and between governments – as to the legality of a possible fully autonomous weapon system. While most NGOs such as – most notably – the Human Rights Watch call for a pre-emptive ban, there are many scholars who argue that the element of full autonomy does not by itself violate international law necessarily. Most governments agree that fully autonomous weapons need to be strictly restricted if not entirely banned whereas world leaders in weapons development tend to be more reluctant on a ban and seem to be unimpeded should they develop such weapons in the future.

3. What does Human Rights Watch (HRW) say?

Human Rights Watch is a leading NGO in the field of human rights and the world wide protection thereof. HRW has been especially active in leading the discussion for a pre-emptive ban against “killer robots”. According to them the development of fully autonomous weapon systems is one of the most alarming news at the moment. They argue that without meaningful human control, autonomous weapons violate Martens Clause – which is considered to be a part of customary international law – dictating that no new or old weapon technology (regardless of such weapons being explicitly regulated) can contradict the dictates of public conscience and the principles of humanity. Principles of humanity comprise of humane treatment and respect for human life and dignity whereas the dictates of public conscience is the combined opinions of public and governments. According to the Human Rights Watch, the dictates of public conscience is against the development of such weapons without meaningful human control as many experts, NGOs and governments of CCW member States express such consensus.

Accordingly, states should consider these two elements of Martens Clause when developing, producing or using any weapon and especially new weapons. Although the current technology does not immediately permit the development of fully autonomous weapons, according to the Human Rights Watch, this will be possible in the near future considering the rapid advancing of technology in out times and as such a pre-emptive ban is necessary.

4. What is the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)?

The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) is an international convention regarding the prohibition or restriction of certain weapons which are considered to have an indiscriminate effect or to be excessively injurious. Although fully autonomous weapons are not regulated in this convention, CCW member states have convened on multiple occasions for a period of years to discuss the possibility of the development of fully autonomous weapons. CCW member states seem to be unable to reach a definitive consensus on the subject currently however one thing is clear, meaningful human control – whatever form it may take – is deemed to be absolutely necessary.

This article is jointly authored by Yavuz İskit and Deniz Aktaş.

Image: The Conversation

Sources:

[1]Neil Davison, A Legal Perspective: Autonomous Weapons Systems under International Humanitarian Law, UNODA Occasional Papers No. 30 (2017), p. 5.

[2]Markus Wagner, AutonomousWeaponSystems, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2016), p.2.

[3]Pike, John (November 7, 2011). “TheSamsungTechwin SGR-A1 SentryGuard Robot”. Global Security.