Autonomy in the Battlespace: Independently Operating Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict

Markus Wagner
{"title":"Autonomy in the Battlespace: Independently Operating Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict","authors":"Markus Wagner","doi":"10.1163/9789004229495_006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the use of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) and the challenges that such systems pose with respect to compliance with the law of armed conflict. Importantly, AWS pose different questions than those surrounding the current use of unmanned aerial systems. For that reason, the article briefly sketches the history of AWS. It then distinguishes the current technologies, which operate either by way of remote control or through automated mechanisms, from systems which are currently under development and which operate either wholly autonomously or at least at a higher level of autonomy and without direct human input while carrying out their missions (II.). Part III. provides a detailed analysis of AWS under the principle of distinction and the principle of proportionality. It argues that while AWS may be able to satisfy the former principle under certain conditions, it is not clear that the same is true for the latter. The critical challenges with respect to the principle of proportionality and its applicability for AWS is manifold. The principle is difficult to apply in the abstract and thus is difficult to \"translate\" into machine code in a manner that allows it to be applied to real-life situations and changing circumstances. This problem originates in the lack of a generally accepted definition of what exactly the principle of proportionality requires in each situation. The article therefore concludes that current technology is incapable of allowing AWS to be operated within the existing framework of the law of armed conflict. While there may well be situations in which these requirements are met, these situations include only a fraction of modern military operations and AWS do not provide additional benefits over existing weaponry for these situations. Part IV. provides concluding observations.","PeriodicalId":375754,"journal":{"name":"Public International Law eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public International Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004229495_006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

The article analyzes the use of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) and the challenges that such systems pose with respect to compliance with the law of armed conflict. Importantly, AWS pose different questions than those surrounding the current use of unmanned aerial systems. For that reason, the article briefly sketches the history of AWS. It then distinguishes the current technologies, which operate either by way of remote control or through automated mechanisms, from systems which are currently under development and which operate either wholly autonomously or at least at a higher level of autonomy and without direct human input while carrying out their missions (II.). Part III. provides a detailed analysis of AWS under the principle of distinction and the principle of proportionality. It argues that while AWS may be able to satisfy the former principle under certain conditions, it is not clear that the same is true for the latter. The critical challenges with respect to the principle of proportionality and its applicability for AWS is manifold. The principle is difficult to apply in the abstract and thus is difficult to "translate" into machine code in a manner that allows it to be applied to real-life situations and changing circumstances. This problem originates in the lack of a generally accepted definition of what exactly the principle of proportionality requires in each situation. The article therefore concludes that current technology is incapable of allowing AWS to be operated within the existing framework of the law of armed conflict. While there may well be situations in which these requirements are met, these situations include only a fraction of modern military operations and AWS do not provide additional benefits over existing weaponry for these situations. Part IV. provides concluding observations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
战场空间的自主性:独立操作武器系统与武装冲突法
本文分析了自主武器系统(AWS)的使用以及此类系统在遵守武装冲突法方面所构成的挑战。重要的是,AWS提出的问题与目前使用的无人机系统不同。因此,本文简要介绍了AWS的历史。然后,它区分了当前的技术,这些技术通过远程控制或自动化机制运行,与目前正在开发的系统,这些系统要么完全自主运行,要么至少具有更高的自主水平,在执行任务时没有直接的人工输入(II)。第三部分。详细分析了区分原则和比例原则下的AWS。它认为,虽然AWS在某些条件下可能能够满足前一个原则,但对于后一个原则是否同样成立尚不清楚。关于比例原则及其对AWS的适用性的关键挑战是多方面的。这个原则很难抽象地应用,因此很难以一种允许它应用于现实生活和不断变化的环境的方式“翻译”成机器代码。这个问题的根源在于,对于比例原则在每一种情况下究竟需要什么,缺乏一个普遍接受的定义。因此,本文的结论是,目前的技术无法使AWS在现有的武装冲突法框架内运行。虽然可能存在满足这些要求的情况,但这些情况仅包括现代军事行动的一小部分,并且AWS在这些情况下无法提供比现有武器更多的优势。第四部分是结论性意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Dual‐Nature Thesis: Which Dualism? Legality and the Legal Relation Soldiers as Public Officials: A Moral Justification for Combatant Immunity A Pragmatic Reconstruction of Law's Claim to Authority Ownership, Use, and Exclusivity: The Kantian Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1