The Dehumanization of International Humanitarian Law: An Analysis of the Potential Impact of Autonomous Weapon Systems on International Humanitarian Law

Year 2022, Volume: 24 Issue: 2, 174 - 196, 29.12.2022

Berkant Akkuş

https://doi.org/10.54627/gcd.1112457

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Autonomous weapon systems (AWS), also known as killer robots, are advanced technology weapons that use artificial intelligence and robotic technology to select targets and attack without any human intervention. Autonomous weapon systems provide many benefits on the battlefield. AWS is used as a preventative action in dangerous missions in order to prevent civilian and military losses. It radically changes the battlefield by acting completely independently of the weaknesses such as disappointment, revenge, anger, and fatigue that the soldiers have during the armed conflict.

Autonomous weapon systems, which act without meaningful human control, create problems in determining legal and criminal responsibility, and the decision of life and death by a machine opens up the inviolability of human dignity. This study will examine the problems created by autonomous weapon systems in international humanitarian law. In line with this purpose, the principle of distinction, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of precaution, which are the core principles of international humanitarian law, will be discussed. The weapon review process of autonomous weapon systems and whether it should be banned in line with the Martens Clause will be examined in line with the discussions in the international arena.

Keywords

Autonomous Weapon Systems, International Law, Artificial Intelligence, The Martens Clause

Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukukun İnsandışılaştırılması: Otonom Silah Sistemlerinin Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk Üzerindeki Potansiyel Etkisi Üzerine Bir Analiz

Abstract

Otonom silah sistemleri diğer bir adıyla katil robotlar, yapay zeka ve robotik teknolojisinden faydalanarak herhangi bir insan müdahalesine gerek duymadan hedefleri seçen ve saldırıda bulunan ileri teknoloji silahlardır. Otonom silah sistemleri savaş meydanında pek çok fayda sağlamaktadır. Tehlikeli görevlerde önleyici olarak kullanılarak sivillerin ve askeri kayıpların önüne geçmektedir. Askerlerin silahlı çatışma sırasında sahip olduğu hayal kırıklığı, intikam, öfke, yorgunluk gibi zaaflardan tamamen bağımsız hareket ederek savaşın gidişatını/seyrini kökten değiştirmektedir.

Anlamlı insan kontrolü bulunmadan harekete geçen otonom silah sistemleri ise hukuki ve cezai sorumluluğun belirlenmesinde problemler yaratmakta ve bir makine tarafından yaşam ve ölüm kararının verilmesi insan onurunun dokunulmazlığını tartışmaya açmaktadır. Bu çalışma, otonom silah sistemlerinin uluslararası insancıl hukukta yarattığı problemleri, günümüz silahlı çatışmalarından örneklerle inceleyecektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda; uluslararası insancıl hukuk prensipleri olan ayırt etme , ölçülülük ve önleme ilkeleri detaylı bir şekilde tartışılacaktır. Otonom silah sistemlerinin Martens kaydı doğrultusunda yasaklanıp yasaklanmaması gerekliliği hususu uluslararası arenadaki tartışmalar doğrultusunda incelenecektir.

Keywords

Otonom Silah Sistemleri, Uluslararası Hukuk, Martens Kaydı, Yapay Zeka

References

• Arkin, R. (2009). Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots. London: Chapman and Hall.
• Asaro, P. (2012). On Banning Autonomous Weapon Systems: Human Rights, Automation, and the Dehumanization of Lethal Decision-Making. International Review of the Red Cross , 687-709.
• (2020). Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons. Geneva: The International Committee of the Red Cross.
• BAE Systems. (2022, May 4). Taranis. Retrieved from https://www.baesystems.com: https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis
• Bentham, J. (1988). The Principles of Morals and Legislation . New York: Prometheus Books.
• Blake, D., & Imburgia, J. (2010). Bloodless Weapons? The Need to Conduct Legal Reviews of Certain Capabilities and the Implications of Defining Them as Weapons. Air Force Law Review, 157.
• Boothby, W. (2013). How Far Will the Law Allow Unmanned Targeting to Go? In D. Saxon, International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War (pp. 45-55). Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague.
• Bradshaw, J., Hoffman, R., Johnson, M., & Woods, D. (2013). The Seven Deadly Myths of Autonomous Systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 54-61.
• Cahn, N. (2006). Poor Children: Child Witches and Child Soldiers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 413-418.
• Cassese, A. (2008). The Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky? In P. Gaeta, S. Zappalà, & A. Cassese, The Human Dimension of International Law (p. 39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction. (2012). No-Strike and the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology. Washington: United States Department of Defense.
• Crootof, R. (2015). The Killer Robots Are Here: Legal and Policy Implications. Cardozo Law Review, 1847.
• Danish Ministry of Defence and Defence Command Denmark. (2016). Military Manual on International Law Relevant to Danish Armed Forces in International Operations. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Defence and Defence Command Denmark.
• Deeney, C. (2022, May 4). Six in Ten (61%) Respondents Across 26 Countries Oppose the Use of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems Ipsos. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/human-rights-watch-six-in-tenoppose-autonomous-weapons
• Defence, T. U. (2011). Joint Doctrine Note 2/11: The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. London : The UK Ministry of Defence.
• Defense, U. D. (2012). Autonomy in Weapons Systems, Directive No. 3000.09. Virginia : U.S. Department of Defense.
• Dinstein, Y. (2002). Legal and Ethical Lessons of NATO's Kosovo Campaign. International Law Studies, 219.
• Evans, T. (2013). At War With Robots: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Martens Clause. Hofstra Law Review, 733.
• Fry, J. (2006). Contextualized Legal Reviews for the Methods and Means of Warfare: Cave Combat and International Humanitarian Law. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 473.
• Future of Life Institute. (2015, July 28). Autonomous Weapons: An Open Letter From AI & Robotics Researchers. Retrieved from https://futureoflife.org/: https://futureoflife.org/2016/02/09/open-letter-autonomous-weapons-ai-robotics/
• Future of Life Institute. (2017, August 21). An Open Letter to the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Retrieved from https://futureoflife.org/: https://futureoflife.org/2017/08/20/autonomous-weapons-open-letter-2017/
• Gardam, J. (1993). Proportionality and Force in International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 391-413.
• General Comment No. 3 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Life (Article 4) (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 57th Ordinary Session November 18, 2015).
• Grut, C. (2013). The Challenge of Autonomous Lethal Robotics to International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 13.
• Guarini, M., & Bello, P. (2014). Robotic Warfare: Some Challenges in Moving from Noncivilian to Civilian Theaters. In P. Lin, & K. Abney, Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics (p. 150). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
• Henckaerts, J. M., & Beck, L. D. (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Henderson, I. (2009). The Contemporary Law of Targeting: Military Objectives, Proportionality and Precautions in Attack under Additional Protocol I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Herbach, J. (2012). Into the Caves of Steel: Precaution, Cognition and Robotic Weapon Systems Under the International Law of Armed Conflict. Amsterdam Law Forum, 3-20.
• Heyns, C. (2017). Autonomous Weapons in Armed Conflict and the Right to a Dignified Life: an African Perspective. South African Journal on Human Rights, 46-71.
• ICRC. (2006). A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare: Measures to Implement Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977. Geneva: International Review of the Red Cross.
• Israel Aerospace Industries. (2022, May 4). Guardium - Autonomous Security Vehicle. Retrieved from https://www.iai.co.il/: https://www.iai.co.il/
• Jensen, E. T. (2020). Autonomy and Precautions in the Law of Armed Conflict. International Law Studies, 578-601.
• Jevglevskaja, N. (2018). Weapons Review Obligation under Customary International Law. International Law Studies, 185-221.
• Kastan, B. (2013). Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Coming Legal Singularity? University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, 49.
• Koplow, D. (2010). Death by Moderation: The U.S. Military’s Quest for Useable Weapons. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kos, A. (2013). European Union Statement. Speech delivered at the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (p. 4). Geneva: International Review of the Red Cross.
• Kumagai, J. (2022, May 4). A Robotic Sentry For Korea's Demilitarized Zone. Retrieved from https://spectrum.ieee.org/: https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-robotic-sentry-for-koreas-demilitarized-zone
• Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ GL No 95 (ICJ July 8, 1996).
• Marchant, G. (2011). International Governance of Autonomous Military Robots. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 272.
• Marra, W., & McNeil, S. (2013). Understanding 'The Loop': Regulating the Next Generation of War Machines. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1139.
• Melzer, N. (2014). The Principle of Distinction Between Civilians and Combatants. In A. Clapham, & P. Gaeta, The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (p. 298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Meron, T. (2000). The Martens Clause, Principles of Humanity, and Dictates of Public Conscience. The American Journal of International Law, 78-89.
• Moyes, R. (2014). Key Areas for Debate on Autonomous Weapons Systems. London: Article 36.
• NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre. (2016). Future Unmanned System Technologies Legal and Ethical Implications of Increasing Automation. Kalkar: NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre.
• Newton , M., & May, L. (2014). Proportionality in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Noll, G. (2013). Analogy at War: Proportionality, Equality and the Law of Targeting. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 205-230.
• Northrop-Grumman. (2022, May 4). X-47B UCAS. Retrieved from https://www.northropgrumman.com: https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/x-47b-ucas
• Petman, J. (2017). Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Humanitarian Law: Out of the Loop? Research Reports / Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights. Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
• Prepared by the International Group of Experts at the Invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Tallinn: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.
• Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University. (2013). HPCR: Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Prosecutor v Delalić (Judgement), IT-96-21-A (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber February 20, 2001).
• Quéguiner , J. F. (2015). The Principle of Distinction: Beyond an Obligation of Customary International Humanitarian Law. In H. Hensel, The Legitimate Use of Military Force The Just War Tradition and the Customary Law of Armed Conflict (pp. 161-171). London: Routledge.
• Roff, H., & Danks, D. (2018). Trust but Verify: The Difficulty of Trusting Autonomous Weapons Systems. Journal of Military Ethics, 2-20.
• Roord, M. (2015). NATO's Targeting Process: Ensuring Human Control over Autonomous Weapons. In P. Scharre, & A. Williams, Autonomous Systems: Issues for Defence Policymakers (pp. 152-168). Norfolk: NATO Allied Command Transformation.
• Saab, G. A. (1984). The Specificities of Humanitarian Law. In C. Swinarski, Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet (p. 265). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C., & Zimmerman, B. (1987). Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Sassoli, M. (2014). Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified. International Law Studies, 308-340.
• Scharre, P., & Horowitz, M. (2015). An Introduction to Autonomy in Weapon Systems. Washington: Center for a New American Security.
• Schmitt, M. (2006). War, Technology and the Law of Armed Conflict. In A. Helm, The Law of War in the 21st Century: Weaponry and the Use of Force (pp. 137-142). Newport: US Naval War College, International Law Studies.
• Schmitt, M. (2013). "Out of the Loop": Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict. Harvard National Security Journal, 231-281.
• Schmitt, M. (2013). Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A Reply to the Critics. Harvard National Security Journal , 12.
• Schwarzenberger , G. (1958). The Legality of Nuclear Weapons. London: Stevens & Sons Ltd.
• Sharkey, N. (2012). The Evitability of Autonomous Robot Warfare. International Review of the Red Cross, 787-799.
• Sharkey, N. (2014). Towards a Principle for the Human Supervisory Control of Robot Weapons. Politica and Societa, 305.
• Singer, P. (2009). Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. London: Penguin Books.
• Solis, G. D. (2021). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sparrow, R. (2015). Twenty Seconds to Comply: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Recognition of Surrender. International Law Studies, 699-728.
• Stop Killer Robots. (2022, 02 18). Retrieved from https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/
• Thurnher, J. (2018). Feasible Precautions in Attack and Autonomous Weapons. In W. H. von Heinegg, R. Frau, & T. Singer, Dehumanization of Warfare: Legal Implications of New Weapon Technologies (pp. 99-117). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
• UK Ministry of Defence. (2016). UK Weapons Reviews. Shrivenham: Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre.
• UNIDIR. (2014). The Weaponization of Increasingly Autonomous Technologies: Considering how Meaningful Human Control might move the discussion forward. Geneva: The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.
• US Department of Defense. (2015). Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense Law of War Manual. Washington: US Department of Defense.
• US Naval War College. (2007). US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Coastguard, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations . Washington: US Naval War College.
• von Hirsch, A. (1992). Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment. Crime and Justice, 55-98.
• Wagner, M. (2011). Taking Humans Out of the Loop: Implications for International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Law, Information and Science, 155.
• Wagner, M. (2013). Autonomy in the Battlespace: Independently Operating Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict. In D. Saxon, International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War (p. 111). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims - Eritrea's Claims, ICGJ 356 (PCA 2005) (Permanent Court of Arbitration [PCA]; Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission December 19, 2005).
• Winter, E. (2020). The Compatibility of the Use of Autonomous Weapons with the Principle of Precaution in the Law of Armed Conflict. Military Law and the Law of War Review, 240-262.