ULUSLARARASI HUKUK KAPSAMINDA OTONOM SİLAH SİSTEMLERİ

Öz

Bu makale otonom silah sistemleri ile uluslararası insancıl hukukun uygunluğunu araştırmaktadır. Uluslararası insancıl hukukun ana ilkeleri olan ayırt etme ilkesi, ölçülülük ilkesi, önleme ilkesi, askeri gereklilik ve insanlık ilkesi doğrultusunda, insan olmayan savaşçıların kullanıldığı risksiz savaş kavramının etkileri araştırmanın temelini oluşturmaktadır. Bu makale otonom silah sistemlerinin uluslararası insancıl hukuk normlarıyla uyumlu olabileceğini varsayarak; otonom silah sistemlerinin nasıl sınıflandırılacağını, doğacak zararlardan oluşan sorumluluğun kime atfedileceğinin devletin, operatörün, yazılımcının ve komutanın sorumluluğunun belirlenmesi dahil gelişen teknoloji doğrultusunda hukuki altyapının nasıl yorumlanması gerektiğini tartışmaktadır. Martens kaydı, özellikle ortaya çıkan teknolojinin insanlık ilkelerine ve kamu vicdanının emirlerine uymasını gerektirir. İnsanlık ilkeleri, başkalarına insanca muamele edilmesini ve insan yaşamına ve onuruna saygı gösterilmesini gerektirir. Kritik işlevler üzerinde anlamlı bir insan kontrolünden yoksun olan silahlar bu ilkelere uymayacaktır. Makalenin sonuçları, hedef seçimi ve angajman gibi önemli işlevleri otonom bir şekilde yerine getirebilen silah sistemleri geliştirmenin ve kullanmanın hukuki sonuçlarını ve bu silahların kullanımını, özellikle bireysel saldırılar üzerinde anlamlı insan kontrolünde uluslararası insan hakları hukuku ve uluslararası insancıl hukukun düzenlemedeki rolünü gösterecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Otonom Silah Sistemleri
• Uluslararası Hukuk
• Yapak Zeka

AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Öz

The article questions the compliance of autonomous weapons systems with international humanitarian law (IHL). It seeks to answer this question by analysing the application of the core principles of international humanitarian law with regard to the use of autonomous weapons systems. As part of the discussion on compliance, the article also considers the implications of riskless warfare where non-human agents are used. The article presupposes that it is actually possible for AWS to comply with IHL in very broad and general terms. However, there is a need for discussion, acceptance, and institutionalization of the interpretation for classification of AWS as well as expansion of the legal framework to cater to the advanced technology. This interpretation will also include a system for allocating and attributing responsibility for their use. The article's results will demonstrate the legal consequences of developing and employing weapon systems capable of performing important functions like target selection and engagement autonomously and the role of IHL and IHRL in regulating the use of these weapons, particularly in human control over individual assaults.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Autonomous Weapon Systems
• International Law
• Artificial Intelligence

Kaynakça

1. Ak, T., & Avaner, T. (2019). Silahlı İnsansız Hava Araçlarının Uluslararası Alanda ve İç Güvenlikte Sevk ve İdaresine İlişkin Hukuki Saptamalar. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 44-66.
2. Amoroso, D., & Tamburrini, G. (2021). Toward a Normative Model of Meaningful Human Control over Weapons Systems. Ethics & International Affairs, 245-272.
3. Amoroso, D., & Tamburrini, G. (2017). The Ethical and Legal Case Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems. Global Jurist, 6.
4. Anderson, K., & Waxman, M. (2014). Adapting the Law of Armed Conflict to Autonomous Weapon Systems. International Law Studies , 386-411.
5. Anderson, K., & Waxman, M. (2017). Debating Autonomous Weapon Systems, Their Ethics, and Their Regulation Under International Law. In K. Yeung, E. Scotford, & R. Brownsword, The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology (p. 550). Oxford : Oxford University Press.
6. Arkin, R. C. (2009). Governing Lethal Behaviour in Autonomous System. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group,.
7. 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.
8. (2020). Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons. Geneva: The International Committee of the Red Cross.

9. Birnbacher, D. (2016). Are Autonomous Weapons Systems a Threat to Human Dignity? In S. Beck, R. Geiss, H.-Y. Liu, C. Kress, & N. Bhuta, Autonomous Weapons Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy (pp. 105-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Boogaard, J. (2015). Proportionality and Autonomous Weapons Systems. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 247-283.
11. Boothby, W. (2016). Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Boothby, W. H. (2014). Conflict Law: The Influence of New Weapons. Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
13. Brehm, M. (2017). Defending the Boundary: Constraints and Requirements on the Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. Geneva: The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights.
14. Bruun, L., Goussac , N., & Boulanin, V. (2021). Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: Identifying Limits and the Required Type and Degree of Human–Machine Interaction. Stockholm : Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
15. Caron, J. (2020). Defining Semi-Autonomous, Automated and Autonomous Weapon Systems In Order To Understand Their Ethical Challenges. Digital War, 173-177.
16. Chengeta, T. (2016). Accountability Gap: Autonomous Weapon Systems and Modes of Responsibility in International Law. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 2-51.
17. Crootof, R. (2016). A Meaningful Floor for Meaningful Human Control. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 53-62.
18. Crootof, R. (2018). Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Limits of Analogy. Harvard National Security Journal, 51.
19. Crootof, R. (2016). War Torts: Accountability for Autonomous Weapons. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1347-1402.
20. Cummings, M. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare. London: Chatman House The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
21. Davison, N. (n.d.). A legal perspective:Autonomous weapon systems underinternational humanitarian law. UNODA Occasional Papers.
22. Deeks, A., Lubell, N., & Murray, D. (2019). Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, and the Use of Force by States. Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 25.
23. Defence, T. U. (2011). Joint Doctrine Note 2/11: The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. London : The UK Ministry of Defence.
24. Defense, U. D. (2012). Autonomy in Weapons Systems, Directive No. 3000.09. Virginia : U.S. Department of Defense.
25. Docherty, B. (2012, 08 10). Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots. Boston: Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org: https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/08/10/stopping-killer-robots/country-positions-banning-fully-autonomous-weapons-and
26. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2017, June). Pros and Cons of Autonomous Weapons Systems. Military Review, 72-81. Retrieved from ARMY UNIVERSITY PRESS: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2017/Pros-and-Cons-of-Autonomous-Weapons-Systems/
27. Ekelhof, M. (2017). Complications of a Common Language: Why it is so Hard to Talk about Autonomous Weapons. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 328.
28. Geiss, R. (2015). The International-Law Dimension of Autonomous Weapons Systems. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung | International Policy Analysis.
29. Geiss, R., & Lahmann, H. (2018). Autonomous Weapons Systems: A Paradigm Shift for the Law of Armed Conflict? In J. Ohlin, Research Handbook on Remote Warfare (pp. 371-404). London: Edward Elgar.
30. Geist, E. (2016). It’s Already Too Late to Stop The AI Arms Race—We Must Manage It Instead. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , 319.
31. Goose, S. (2017). The Growing International Movement Against Killer Robots. Harvard International Review, 28-33.
32. Haga, M. C. (2015). Toward Meaningful Human Control of Autonomous. IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS) Proceedings. Institute of Electrical and Electrial Engineering (IEEE).
33. Heyns, C. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, Lethal Autonomous Robotics and the Protection of Life, UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/23/47, April 9, 2013. New York: UN.
34. Heyns, C. (2016). Human Rights and the use of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) During Domestic Law Enforcement. Human Rights Quarterly, 350-378.
35. 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.
36. Horowitz, M. (2010). The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for International Politics. Princeton University Press: New Jersey.
37. Hoven, J., & Santoni de Sio, F. (2018). Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4.
38. Hughes, J. (2018). The Law of Armed Conflict Issues Created by Programming Automatic Target Recognition Systems Using Deep Learning Methods. In T. Gill, R. Geiss, & H. Krieger, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (pp. 99-135). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
39. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, IT-989-29-T (Trial Chamber December 5, 2003).
40. International Committee of the Red Cross. (1987). Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Geneva: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
41. Jensen, E. T. (2020). Autonomy and Precautions in the Law of Armed Conflict. International Law Studies, 578-601.
42. Korac, S. (2018). Depersonalisation of Killing: Towards a 21st Century Use of Force Beyond Good and Evil? Philosophy and Society, 151.
43. Kraska, J. (2021). Command Accountability for AI Weapon Systems in the Law of Armed Conflict. International Law Studies, 408-445.
44. Maas, M. (2019). How Viable Is International Arms Control For Military Artificial Intelligence? Three Lessons From Nuclear Weapons. Contemporary Security Policy, 285-311.
45. Malik, S. (2018). Autonomous Weapon Systems: The Possibility and Probability of Accountability. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 609-629.
46. Marcello Guarini, P. B. (2012). Responsibility for Military Robots. In G. B. Patrick Lin, Robot Ethics :The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics (pp. 145-155). Cambridge: MIT press.
47. Marra, W., & McNeil, S. (2013). Understanding 'The Loop': Regulating the Next Generation of War Machines. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1139.
48. McDougall, C. (2019). Autonomous Weapon Systems and Accountability: Putting the Cart before the Horse. Melbourne Journal of International Law , 58-86.
49. Meron, T. (2000). The Martens Clause, Principles of Humanity, and Dictates of Public Conscience. The American Journal of International Law, 78-89.
50. Moyes, R. (2020, 02 18). Campaign to Stop Killer Robots Annual Report 2020. London: Stop Killer Robots. Retrieved from https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/
51. O’Connell, M. (2013). Banning Autonomous Killing. In M. Evangelista, & H. Shue, The American Way of Bombing: How Legal and Ethical Norms Change (p. 226). New York: Cornell University Press.
52. Rosert, E. (2019). Prohibiting Autonomous Weapons: Put Human Dignity First. Global Policy, 372.
53. Sassoli, M. (2014). Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified. International Law Studies, 308-340.
54. Sauer, F., & Schörnig, N. (2012). Killer Drones: The Silver Bullet of Democratic Warfare? Security Dialogue, 363-380.
55. Saxon, D. (2013). Conclusions International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of the Changing Technology of War. In D. Saxon, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of the Changing Technology of War (pp. 337-346). Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff.
56. Scharre, P. (2018). Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
57. Schmitt, M. (2013). "Out of the loop": Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict. Harvard National Security Journal, 231-281.
58. Schmitt, M. N. (2013). Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A Reply to the Critics. Harvard National Security Journal Features, 1-37.
59. Schulzke, M. (2013). Autonomous Weapons and Distributed Responsibility. Philosophy and Technology, 204.
60. Schulzke, M. (2018). Drone Proliferation and the Challenge of Regulating Dual-Use Technologies. International Studies Review, 1-21.
61. Sharkey, A. (2019). Autonomous Weapons Systems, Killer Robots and Human Dignity. Ethics and Information Technology, 75-87.
62. Sharkey, N. (2012). Automating Warfare: Lessons Learned from the Drones. Journal of Law, Information and Science, 140.
63. Sharkey, N. (2012). The Evitability of Autonomous Robot Warfare. International Review of the Red Cross, 787-799.
64. Sharkey, N., & Suchman, L. (2013). Wishful Mnemonics and Autonomous Killing Machines. Proceedings of the AISB, 14-22.
65. Singer, P. (2009). Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin Books.
66. Solis, G. D. (2021). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer Robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 76.
68. Sparrow, R. (2016). Robots and Respect: Assessing the Case Against Autonomous Weapon Systems. Ethics and International Affairs, 93-116.
69. Sparrow, R. (2015). Twenty Seconds to Comply: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Recognition of Surrender. International Law Studies, 699-728.
70. Suchman, L. (2016). Meanings of autonomy and human cognition under automation. In N. Bhuta, S. Beck , R. Geiss, H.-Y. Liu, & C. Kress, Autonomous Weapons Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy (pp. 75-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71. Tamburrini , G., & Amoroso, D. (2020). Autonomous Weapons Systems and Meaningful Human Control: Ethical and Legal Issues. Current Robotics Reports , 190.
72. Tian, N., Fleurant, A., Kuimova, A., Wezeman, S., & Wezeman, P. (2018). Trends in World Military Expenditure. Stockholm : Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
73. Tonkens, R. (2012). The Case Against Robotic Warfare: A Response to Arkin. Journal of Military Ethics, 149-168.
74. Ulgen, O. (2020). Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons: Are We in Danger of Losing an ‘Elementary Consideration of Humanity’? Baltic Yearbook of International Law, 167-196.
75. 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.
76. Verbruggen, M., & Boulanin , V. (2017). Mapping the Development of Autonomy in Weapon Systems. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
77. Watch, H. R. (2020). Stopping Killer Robots Country Positions on Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons and Retaining Human Control. New York: Human Rights Watch .