CODE, COMMAND, AND CONSEQUENCES: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR CRIMES COMMITTED BY LETHAL AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS (LAWS)?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18372/2307-9061.75.20212Keywords:
LAWS, war crimes, AI, liability, armed conflictAbstract
The purpose of the study is to explore the legal and ethical challenges that arise in contemporary armed conflict due to the increasing integration of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS). As these technologies gain operational relevance, the study seeks to examine who bears liability when autonomous systems perform actions that violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It also aims to assess whether existing legal instruments are adequate to address the complexities introduced by the autonomous decision-making capabilities of AI-driven lethal systems. Research methods: in the article, the research was conducted by using comparative-legal and doctrinal methods to evaluate how different legal systems and international actors respond to the challenge of regulating LAWS. The historical method was applied to trace the development of legal norms related to weapons technologies and armed conflict, providing context for understanding contemporary legal gaps and the need for updated regulation, and normative method was also used to emphasize the necessity of introduction new regulative and prohibitive norms to regulate the problem. Results: this study examines the legal and ethical challenges posed by LAWS in contemporary warfare. It highlights the difficulties in assigning liability when LAWS commit actions that violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The research also assesses the inadequacy of current legal frameworks in addressing these challenges and the need for new regulations to ensure accountability and the protection of civilians. Discussion: LAWS are capable of identify and shoot targets independently, without any human control, from one perspective, offer tactical advantages, such as speed, precision, and reduced direct involvement of human being, but on the other hand, it leads to a deeply unsettling legal and ethical dilemma: Who should be held responsible when an autonomous weapon system commits a war crime? Existing laws, rooted in the premise of human decision-making, are not easily applicable when a machine executes a potentially unlawful act without a clear human command. The legal enigma is who (or what) has responsibility in such scenarios threatens to undermine individual criminal responsibility and the protection of civilians during armed conflict.
References
“Autonomous Weapons Systems: Technical, Military, Legal and Humanitarian Aspects,” International Committee of the Red Cross, Expert Meeting, 2014, p. 7.
Klare Michael, “Assessing the Dangers: Emerging Military technologies and Nuclear (In)Stability,” An Arms Control Association Report, 2023, p. 12.
Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Convention, Fifth Review Conference of the High Contracting Parties, ‘Report of the 2016 informal meeting of experts on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS)’, CCW/CONF.V/2, 10 June 2016, Annex, para. 3.
Boulanin Vincent, Bruun Laura, Goussac Netta, Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2021, p. 14.
Boulanin Vincent, Verbruggen Maaike, Mapping the development of autonomy in weapon systems, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2017, pp. 53-54.
US Department of Defense (DOD), Office of Technical Intelligence, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Technical Assessment: Autonomy (DOD: Washington, DC, Feb. 2015), p. 2.
Szegedy Christian, Zaremba Wojciech, Sutskever Ilya et al., intriguing properties of neural networks, 2014.
Nguyen Anh, Yosinski Jason, Clune Jeff, Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015.
Boulanin Vincent, Verbruggen Maaike, Mapping the development of autonomy in weapon systems, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2017, p. 10.
Alexander, R. D., Herbert, N. J., & Kelly, T. P. The role of the human in an autonomous system. Systems Safety 2009. Incorporating the SaRS Annual Conference, 4th IET International Conference, p. 2.
Boulanin Vincent, Verbruggen Maaike, Mapping the development of autonomy in weapon systems, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2017, p. 10-13.
Boulanin Vincent, Verbruggen Maaike, Mapping the development of autonomy in weapon systems, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2017, p. 10-13.
Ekelhof, Merel A. “Moving Beyond Semantics on Autonomous Weapons: Meaningful Human Control in Operation.” Global Policy, vol. 10, no. 3, 2019, pp. 343–348.
Scharre, Paul. “Autonomous Weapons and Human Control.” Center for a New American Security, 2018.
Boulanin Vincent, Bruun Laura, and Goussac Netta, Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: Identifying Limits and the Required Type and Degree of Human–Machine Interaction, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), June 2021, p. 26.
Davison Neil, “A Legal Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law” (UNODA Occasional Papers, No. 30, 2018, pp. 5-6.
Blanchard Alexander, and Taddeo Mariarosaria, “Autonomous Weapon Systems and Jus Ad Bellum.” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 24, no. 3, 2022, p. 3; Abney Keith. “Robotics, Ethics, and War.” The Ethics of Robot Warfare, edited by Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey, Oxford UP, 2013, p. 340.
Winter Elliot, “The Compatibility of Autonomous Weapons with the Principles of International Humanitarian Law” Journal of Conflict & Security Law (Oxford University Press), 2022, pp. 3-4.
Davison Neil, “A Legal Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law” (UNODA Occasional Papers, No. 30, 2018, pp7-8.
Australian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: Submission to the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, 2023, p. 5.
Australian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: Submission to the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, 2023, p. 5.
Tsagourias Nicholas, Morrison Alasdair, International Humanitarian Law: cases, materials and commentary, Cambridge, 2019, pp. 85-87.
Australian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: Submission to the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, 2023, p. 9.
Cassese, Antonio. International Criminal Law. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 80.
International Criminal Court, Trial Chamber III. Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute: The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo. ICC-01/05-01/08, 21 Mar. 2016, para.146.
Heyns, Christof. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. United Nations Human Rights Council, A/HRC/23/47, 9 Apr. 2013, para. 114.
