THE PROBLEM OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS IN THE CONTEXT OF WAR CRIMES

Yıl 2023, , 93 - 107, 31.01.2023

Feriha Beyza Eryavuz

https://doi.org/10.54699/andhd.1172600

Cited By: 2

Öz

Nowadays, it is becoming more difficult to predict how weapons will be used in battles within the confines of existing laws due to technical advancements. Based on all of these advancements, this paper will analyze two different responsibility regimes and the context of war crimes when discussing the responsibility regime that might result from autonomous weapon activity. Within the scope of this study, it will be discussed who may be responsible for possible violations arising from their activities rather than the responsibility of their fully autonomous vehicles themselves. Under international law, liability may arise in specific ways, regardless of who may be liable under a state's domestic norms. In this context, state responsibility and individual criminal liability are subject to their own unique regimes. The purpose of this study is to discuss the provisions of international law on state responsibility and individual criminal liability in the context of violations committed by autonomous vehicles during armed conflicts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

War Crimes, Autonomous Weapons, Armed Conflict, State Responsibility, Individual Criminal Responsibility

Savaş Suçları Bağlamında Otonom Silahlarda Hesap Verilebilirlik Sorunsalı

Öz

Günümüzde insanların savaşlarda kullandığı silahlara ilişkin teknolojik gelişmelerin hukuki düzenlemeler çerçevesinde meydana getirdiği belirsizlikler artmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, bütün bu gelişmelerden yola çıkarak otonom araçların faaliyetlerinden dolayı doğabilecek sorumluluk rejimine ilişkin tartışmalar, savaş suçları bağlamında ve iki ayrı sorumluluk rejimi kapsamında ele alınacaktır. Bu çalışma kapsamında tam otonom araçlarının bizatihi sorumluluğundan ziyade onların faaliyetlerinden doğan muhtemel ihlallerden kimlerin sorumlu olabileceği tartışılacaktır. Devletlerin iç düzenlemeleri kapsamında sorumlu olabilecek kişiler farklılık gösterebilir ancak uluslararası hukuk bünyesinde sorumluluk belli şekillerde doğabilmektedir. Bu kapsamda devlet sorumluluğu ve bireysel cezai sorumluluk kendine özgü rejimlere tabidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, uluslararası hukukun devlet sorumluluğuna ve bireysel cezai sorumluluğa ilişkin hükümlerini silahlı çatışmalar sırasında otonom araçlar tarafından işlenen ihlaller bağlamında tartışmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Savaş Suçları, Otonom Silahlar, Silahlı Çatışma, Devlet Sorumluluğu, Bireysel Cezai Sorumluluk

Kaynakça

• AKKURT, Sinan Sami: “Yapay Zekânın Otonom Davranışlarından Kaynaklanan Hukukî Sorumluluk”, Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, 2019, Sayı 13, s. 39-59.
• AMBOS, Kai: Treatise on International Criminal Law, Volume 2: The Crimes and Sentencing, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014.
• AMOROSO, Daniele: “Jus in bello and jus ad bellum arguments against autonomy in weapons systems: A re-appraisal”, Questions of International Law (QIL), 2017, Cilt 43, s. 5-31.
• Article 36: Killer Robots: UK Government Policy on Fully Autonomous Weapons, United Kingdom, 2013 (https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Policy_Paper1.pdf, ET: 22.03.2022).
• The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee: European Civil Law Rules Inrobotics, 2016 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571379/IPOL_STU(2016)571379_EN.pdf, ET: 23.03.2022).
• BARNIDGE, Robert P.: “The Due Diligence Principle Under International Law”, International Community Law Review, 2006, Cilt 8, s. 81-121.
• BM Genel Kurulu: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, A/HRC/23/47, 2013 (https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/705553, ET: 12.01.2023).
• BM: Group of Governmental Experts 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, No: CCW/GGE.1/2017/CRP.1, 2017 (https://docs-library.unoda.org/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons_-_Meeting_of_High_Contracting_Parties_(2017)/2017_CCW_GGE.1_2017_CRP.1_Advanced_%2Bcorrected.pdf, ET: 21.12.2022).
• BMGK: Eski Yugoslavya Uluslararası Mahkemesi Statüsü, 2009 (https://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_sept09_en.pdf, ET: 22.03.2022).
• BMGK: Resolution No. S/RES/1970, 2011 (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_02/20110927_110226-UNSCR-1970.pdf, ET: 22.04.2022).
• BMGK: Resolution No. S/RES/1593, 31 Mart 2005 (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/N0529273.pdf, ET: 22.04.2022).
• BMGK: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Roma Statüsü), 17 Haziran 1998 (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf, ET: 12.01.2023).
• CARON, Jean‐François: “Defining Semi‐autonomous, Automated and Autonomous Weapon Systems in Order to Understand their Ethical Challenges”, Digital War, 2020, Sayı 1, s. 173-177.
• CASSESE, Antonio: “The Nicaragua and Tadić Tests Revisited in Light of the ICJ Judgment on Genocide in Bosnia”, European Journel of International Law, 2017, Cilt 18, Sayı 4, s. 649-668.
• CROOTOF, Rebecca: “A Meaningful Floor for ‘Meaningful Human Control’”, Temple Int‘l & Comp. L.J, 2016, Cilt 30, Sayı 1, s. 53-62.
• Daimî Uluslararası Adalet Divanı: Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), 26 Haziran 1927, Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A-No. 9, Collection of Judgments, A.W. Sijthoff’s Publishing Company, 1927.
• DUNLAP, Charles J.: “Accountability and Autonomous Weapons: much a do about nothing?”, Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, 2016, Cilt 30, s. 63-76.
• European Union (EU): Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Directorate B Policy Department MELZER, Nils: “Directorate-general for External Policies of the Union, Directorate Policy Department, Human Rights Implications of the Usage of Drones and Unmanned Robots in Warfare”, (Ed.) Pia VANNESTE, 2013.
• FORD, Christopher M.: “Autonomous Weapons and International Law”, South Carolina Law Review, 2017, Cilt 69, Sayı 2, s. 413-477.
• Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Law, Academy Briefing No. 8, 2014.
• GÜNEYSU, Gökhan: Otonom Silah Sistemleri: Bir Uluslararası Hukuk İncelemesi, Nisan Yayınları, Eskişehir, 2022. ICRC: Customary IHL Databas, Volume II, Chapter 40, Section A, m. 139 (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule139, ET: 31.08.2022).
• ICRC: ICRC Position on Autonomous Weapon Systems, ICRC Position And Background Paper, 2021 (https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-position-autonomous-weapon-systems, ET: 22.12.2022).
• JAIN, Neha: “Autonomous Weapons Systems: New Frameworks for Individual Responsibility”, (Ed.) BHUTA, Nehal / BECK, Susanne / GEIß, Robin / LIU, Hin-Yan / KREß, Claus: Autonomous Weapons Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016, s. 303-324.
• KOLB, Robert / HYDE, Richard: An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart Publishing, Oxford-Portland Ore, 2008.
• LIPTÁK, Béla: Can we control robots? (https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2019/can-we-control-robots/, ET: 21.03.2022).
• MELZER, Nils: International Humanitarin Law a Comprehensive Introduction, IHL Handbook, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Cenevre, 2016.
• ROFF, Heather M.: “Meaningful Human Control, Artificial Intelligence and Lethal Autonomous Weapons”, Briefing paper prepared for the Informal Meeting of Ex- perts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 2016, s. 1-6.
• SASSÓLI, Marco: “Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified”, International Law Studies, 2014, Cilt 90, s. 308-338.
• SCHARRE, Paul: İnsansız Ordular, Katil Robotlar, Otonom Silahlar ve Makine Savaşları, (Çev.) ÇETİNALP, Kutsi Aybars, 2. Baskı, Kronik Yayınları, İstanbul, 2021.
• SCHULLER, Alan L.: “At the Crossroads of Control: The Intersection of Artificial Intelligence in Autonomous Weapon Systems with International Humanitarian Law”, Harvard National Security Journal, 2017, Cilt 8, Sayı 1, s. 379-425.
• The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): Expert Meeting, “Autonomous Weapon Systems Technical, Military, Legal and Humanitarian Aspects”, 2014.
• United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence: The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Joint Doctrine Note 2/11, 2011 (https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/3890-uk-ministry-of-defense-joint-doctrine-note-211-the, ET: 22.03.2022).
• UCM: Elements of Crimes, 2011 (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf, ET: 12.01.2023).
• Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, No. 10 (A/56/10), 2001 (Taslak Maddeler).
• United States (US) Department of Defense Directive, Part 2, No: 3000.09, 21 Kasım 2012, Değişiklik 1, 05.08.2017 (https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/d3000_09.pdf, ET: 22.03.2022).
• VAN DEN HOVEN, Jeroen / DE SIO, Filippo Santoni: “Meaningful Human Control Over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account”, Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 2018, Cilt 5, s. 1-14.
• YEUNG, Karen: “A Study of the Implications of Advanced Digital Technologies (Including AI Systems) for the Concept of Responsibility Within a Human Rights Framework”, Committee of Experts On Human Rights Dimensions of Automated Data Processing and Different Forms of Artificial İntelligence, 2018 (https://ssrn.com/abstract=3286027, ET: 22.03.2022).