Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:37:28.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legality of Use and Challenges of New Technologies in Warfare – the Use of Autonomous Weapons in Contemporary or Future Wars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2019

Agnieszka Szpak
Agnieszka Szpak*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Political Science and Security Studies, Department of International Security, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Ul. Batorego 39 L, 87-100 Toruń, Poland. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Along with the rapid development and proliferation of autonomous robotic weapons, machines are beginning to replace people on battlefields. The use by the USA of Predators or Reapers and other unmanned aerial vehicles in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places in the world clearly signals a distancing of soldiers from their targets. In this article I concentrate on fully autonomous weapons. The theses of the article are as follows: the use of autonomous weapons would be contrary to the basic and fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, such as the principles of distinction and proportionality, and thus illegal. As such, their use would threaten the wellbeing, life and health of civilians and civilian populations. Their use would undermine the whole concept of the rules of war. Still, there are scholars who are of the opinion that prohibiting the use of autonomous weapons would make no sense at all and that the development of such weapons is inevitable and will take place gradually. Their use would be an expression of the technological dimension of international security. As this article will attempt to demonstrate, the drawbacks of the use of autonomous weapons are of such magnitude that they exclude the legality of such devices.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 118 - 131
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) Available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470 (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions (1977) Available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470 (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Anderson, K and Waxman, M (2013) Law and ethics for autonomous weapons systems. Why a ban won’t work and how the laws of war can. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2250126 (accessed 15 June 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asaro, P (2013) On banning autonomous weapon system, human rights, automation, and the dehumanization of lethal decision making. International Review of the Red Cross 886, 687–709.Google Scholar
Blaskić case (ICTY, Appeals Chamber 2004). Available at: http://www.icty.org/ (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Bucholc, M (2012) Użycie bezzałogowych aparatów latających w sytuacji konfliktu zbrojnego. Wybrane aspekty z zakresu międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego. Polski Rocznik Praw Człowieka i Prawa Humanitarnego 3, 169–181.Google Scholar
Chengeta, T (2018) What level of human control over autonomous weapon systems is required by international law? EJIL Talk. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/what-level-of-human-control-over-autonomous-weapon-systems-is-required-by-international-law/ (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Dinstein, Y (2004) The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docherty, B (2012) Losing humanity. The case against killer robots (report of the International Human Rights Clinic and Human Rights Watch). Available at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/11/19/losing-humanity-0 (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Dorman, K (2005) Proportionality and distinction in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Australian International Law Journal 12, 83–98.Google Scholar
Fenrick, WJ (1982) The rule of proportionality and Protocol I in conventional warfare. Military Law Review 98, 91–127.Google Scholar
Galić case (ICTY, Trial Chamber 2003). Available at: http://www.icty.org/ (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Hayashi, N (2010) Requirements of military necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law. Boston University International Law Review 28, 39–140.Google Scholar
Heaton, JR (2005) Civilians at war: reexamining the status of civilians accompanying the armed forces. Air Force Law Review 57, 157–208.Google Scholar
Henckaerts, J-M and Doswald-Beck, L (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons (1996). Available at: http://www.icj-j.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4 (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
ICRC Commentary to Additional Protocol I. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4&action=openDocument (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750073?OpenDocument (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, UN Doc. A/65/321, 23 August 2010. Available at: http://www.ishr.ch/component/docman/doc_download/1078-extrajudicial-executions-report-ga65-alston (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Kalshoven, F (1973) The Law of Warfare. A Summary of its Recent History and Trends in Development. Geneva: Sijthoff.Google Scholar
Kanwar, V (2011) Post-human humanitarian law: the law of war in the age of robotic weapons. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1619766 (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Knuckey, S (2014) Government conclude first (ever) debate on autonomous weapons: what happened and what’s next, just security. Available at: http://justsecurity.org/2014/05/16/autonomous-weapons-intergovernmental-meeting/ (accessed 15 June 2019.Google Scholar
Liu, H-Y (2013) Categorization and legality of autonomous and remote weapons systems. International Review of the Red Cross 886, 627–652.Google Scholar
Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict (2006). Available at: http://www.iihl.org/iihl/Documents/The%20Manual%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20NIAC.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Nations confront killer robots challenge (2014). Available at: http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2014/05/ccwexperts/ (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
O’Connell, ME (2004–2005) Unlawful killing with combat drones. A case study of Pakistan. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1501144 (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
O’Connell, ME (2010) Lawful Use of Combat Drones, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Hearing: Rise of the Drones II: Examining the Legality of Unmanned Targeting. Available at: https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2010_hr/drones2.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Panel Discussion on the Challenges of New Technologies in Warfare (2014) Available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/event/2014/03-06-research-and-debate-inaugural-event.htm (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, 9 April 2013, /HRC/23/47. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-47_en.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Rogers, APV (2000) Zero-casualty warfare. International Review of the Red Cross 837. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jqcu.htm (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Rosen, RD (2009) Targeting enemy forces in the war on terror: preserving civilian immunity. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42(3), 683–777.Google Scholar
Schmitt, MN (1999) The principle of distinction in 21st century warfare. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 2(1), 143–182.Google Scholar
Schmitt, MN (2007) The law of targeting. In Wilmshurst, E and Breau, S (eds), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–168.Google Scholar
Schmitt, MN (2012) Unmanned combat aircraft systems and international humanitarian law: simplifying the oft benighted debate. Boston University International Law Journal 30(1), 595–619.Google Scholar
Sharkey, NE (2013) The evitability of autonomous robot warfare. International Review of the Red Cross 886, 787–799.Google Scholar
Statement by H.E. Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, Permanent Representative of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva at the Annual Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) Geneva, 14 November 2013. Available at: http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/The-Holy-See-Statement-Lethal-autonomous-weapons-and-drones.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
States to work on Killer Robots (2013). Available at: http://stopkillerrobots.ca/tag/convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/ (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Talks on Killer Robots to Continue (2014). Available at: http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2014/11/ccw2014/ (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Wagner, M (2012) Autonomy in the battlespace: independently operating weapon systems and the law of armed conflict. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2211036 (accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar