Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are essentially weapon systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. While these are neither currently fielded nor officially part of any nation’s defence strategy, there is ample evidence that many States and defence contractors are currently developing LAWS for future deployment. Accordingly, this article will proceed in two main sections. Firstly, it offers a definition of LAWS, focusing on what it is about weapons autonomy that may call for these systems to be delineated, and subject to certain additional legal requirements in international humanitarian law (IHL), arms control and non-proliferation. Secondly, it considers what kinds of weapon systems are likely to emerge as LAWS, the unique challenges posed by them and some ongoing innovations to address these challenges. Three themes run throughout the paper. Firstly, ‘autonomy’ is a term of art, which must be narrowly and specifically applied to weapon systems, if it is to be useful in a LAWS context. Secondly, the purpose for which weapons autonomy and LAWS are defined is to delineate systems that may need to be subject to a) deployment restrictions, b) stronger and additional precautions in attack (in IHL) and/or c) commonly agreed rules to promote strategic stability (in arms control) and non-proliferation. Accordingly, a third theme is to distinguish between the strategic, operational and tactical levels; and to bear in mind that machine autonomy is technically more feasible at the tactical level, while it is necessary to have extensive (deliberative) human involvement at the operational and strategic levels. Indeed, the epitome of this is precisely the setting of strategic priorities and operational parameters within which tactical autonomy will operate. This is the first of a seven-part series. Future articles will build on it to address, more specifically: 1) whether and how LAWS can be deployed in compliance with IHL; 2) issues relating to the explosive remnants of war; 3) the lawful use of LAWS for targeted strikes; 4) legal and policy issues in the autonomous delivery of nuclear weapons; 5) arms control issues; and 6) non-proliferation.
{"title":"Assessing the Sense and Scope of ‘Autonomy’ in Emerging Military Weapon Systems","authors":"Maziar Homayounnejad","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3027540","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3027540","url":null,"abstract":"Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are essentially weapon systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. While these are neither currently fielded nor officially part of any nation’s defence strategy, there is ample evidence that many States and defence contractors are currently developing LAWS for future deployment. Accordingly, this article will proceed in two main sections. Firstly, it offers a definition of LAWS, focusing on what it is about weapons autonomy that may call for these systems to be delineated, and subject to certain additional legal requirements in international humanitarian law (IHL), arms control and non-proliferation. Secondly, it considers what kinds of weapon systems are likely to emerge as LAWS, the unique challenges posed by them and some ongoing innovations to address these challenges. \u0000Three themes run throughout the paper. Firstly, ‘autonomy’ is a term of art, which must be narrowly and specifically applied to weapon systems, if it is to be useful in a LAWS context. Secondly, the purpose for which weapons autonomy and LAWS are defined is to delineate systems that may need to be subject to a) deployment restrictions, b) stronger and additional precautions in attack (in IHL) and/or c) commonly agreed rules to promote strategic stability (in arms control) and non-proliferation. Accordingly, a third theme is to distinguish between the strategic, operational and tactical levels; and to bear in mind that machine autonomy is technically more feasible at the tactical level, while it is necessary to have extensive (deliberative) human involvement at the operational and strategic levels. Indeed, the epitome of this is precisely the setting of strategic priorities and operational parameters within which tactical autonomy will operate. \u0000This is the first of a seven-part series. Future articles will build on it to address, more specifically: \u00001) whether and how LAWS can be deployed in compliance with IHL; 2) issues relating to the explosive remnants of war; 3) the lawful use of LAWS for targeted strikes; 4) legal and policy issues in the autonomous delivery of nuclear weapons; 5) arms control issues; and 6) non-proliferation.","PeriodicalId":317646,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Humanitarian Law (Topic)","volume":"253 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129047015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although criticism of US-led detention at Guantanamo Bay has been extensive, little attention has been placed on evaluating the implications of international humanitarian law standards as applied in international criminal law. This paper concludes that there is a striking resemblance between allegations made of Guantanamo and many of the scenarios that have given rise to individual criminal responsibility for unlawful confinement as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions in other contexts. In this regard, arguments that individuals who do not enjoy prisoner-of-war status fall into a legal vacuum or that international humanitarian law has somehow been rendered obsolete by the `War on Terror` ignore the fact that international criminal precedents unambiguously disagree. If nothing else, an analysis of international criminal law`s treatment of unlawful confinement highlights the urgent need to rethink the legal basis for detention at Guantanamo and the risks of individual criminal responsibility for purporting to develop international humanitarian law through unilateral changes in policy rather than formal international law-making processes.
{"title":"Rethinking Guantánamo: Unlawful Confinement as Applied in International Criminal Law","authors":"J. Stewart","doi":"10.1093/JICJ/MQI088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JICJ/MQI088","url":null,"abstract":"Although criticism of US-led detention at Guantanamo Bay has been extensive, little attention has been placed on evaluating the implications of international humanitarian law standards as applied in international criminal law. This paper concludes that there is a striking resemblance between allegations made of Guantanamo and many of the scenarios that have given rise to individual criminal responsibility for unlawful confinement as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions in other contexts. In this regard, arguments that individuals who do not enjoy prisoner-of-war status fall into a legal vacuum or that international humanitarian law has somehow been rendered obsolete by the `War on Terror` ignore the fact that international criminal precedents unambiguously disagree. If nothing else, an analysis of international criminal law`s treatment of unlawful confinement highlights the urgent need to rethink the legal basis for detention at Guantanamo and the risks of individual criminal responsibility for purporting to develop international humanitarian law through unilateral changes in policy rather than formal international law-making processes.","PeriodicalId":317646,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Humanitarian Law (Topic)","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127027210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：