POSITIVE HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATION OF STATES AND THE USE OF AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS DURING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

Öz

Autonomous weapon systems are artificial intelligence-based, modern weapon systems that can identify and destroy targets without meaningful human intervention. In this article, human rights violations that may occur in case of widespread use of autonomous weapon systems in law enforcement operations in the near future will be examined and the positive obligations of states will be determined. States' positive human rights obligations in line with the United Nations, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, can be listed as weapon selection and the duty of precaution, the official training of law enforcement officers, procedural obligation, the right to explanation and the right not to be subject to completely automatic decisions. The research results of this article offer that, in line with the existing case law of human rights courts, autonomous weapon systems cannot comply with the positive obligation on the right to life.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Autonomous Weapon Systems
• International Human Rights Law
• Positive Obligations

DEVLETLERİN POZİTİF İNSAN HAKLARI YÜKÜMLÜLÜĞÜ VE KOLLUK OPERASYONLARI SIRASINDA OTONOM SİLAH SİSTEMLERİNİN KULLANIMI

Öz

Otonom silah sistemleri, anlamlı bir insan müdahalesi olmaksızın hedefleri belirleyip yok edebilen, yapay zekâ temelli modern silah sistemleridir. Bu makalede, yakın gelecekte otonom silah sistemlerinin kolluk operasyonlarında yaygın olarak kullanılması durumunda meydana gelebilecek insan hakları ihlalleri incelenerek, devletlerin pozitif yükümlülükleri belirlenmeye çalışılacaktır. Devletlerin pozitif insan hakları yükümlülükleri; Birleşmiş Milletler Kolluk Görevlileri Tarafından Güç ve Ateşli Silah Kullanımına İlişkin Temel İlkeler doğrultusunda silah seçimi ve tedbir görevi, kolluk kuvvetlerinin resmi eğitimi, usul yükümlülüğü, açıklanabilirlik hakkı ve tamamen otomatik kararlara tabi olmama hakkı olarak sıralanabilir. Bu makalenin araştırma sonuçları, insan hakları mahkemelerinin mevcut içtihat hukuku doğrultusunda, otonom silah sistemlerinin yaşam hakkına ilişkin pozitif yükümlülüğe uyamayacağını öne sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Otonom Silah Sistemleri
• Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku
• Pozitif Yükümlülükler

Kaynakça

1. Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom, 27021/08 (ECtHR 07 07, 2011).
2. Al-Skeini and others v The United Kingdom, 55721/07 (ECtHR 07 07, 2011).
3. Anderson , K., & Waxman, M. (2013). Law and Ethics for Autonomous Weapon Systems: Why a Ban Won’t Work and How the Laws of War Can. California: Hoover Institution.
4. Anderson, K., Reisner, D., & Waxman, M. (2014). Adapting the Law of Armed Conflict to Autonomous Weapon Systems. International Law Studies, 394.
5. Arkin, R. (2010). The Case for Ethical Autonomy in Unmanned Systems. Journal of Military Ethics, 332.
6. Asaro, P. (2012). On Banning Autonomous Weapon Systems: Human Rights, Automation, and the Dehumanisation of Lethal Decision-making. International Review of the Red Cross, 700.
7. Banković and others v Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, 52207/99 (ECtHR 12 12, 2001).
8. Barrios Family v. Venezuela, Series C No 140 (IACtHR 11 24, 2011).

9. Binz, M. T. (2017). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on a gender-sensitive approach to arbitrary killings. Geneva: UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons.
10. Boothby, W. (2009). Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Boyle, C. K. (2015). The Concept of Arbitrary Deprivation of Life. In B. Ramcharan, The Right to Life in International Law (p. 224). Leiden: Brill.
12. Camargo Guerrero v. Colombia, R.11/45 (HRC 03 31, 1982).
13. Caso Velásquez Rodríguez vs Honduras, Series C No 4 (IACtHR 07 29, 1988).
14. Chengeta, T. (2016). Can Robocop Serve and Protect within the Confines of Law Enforcement Rules? Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series, 50.
15. Chengeta, T. (2017). Are Autonomous Weapon Systems the Subject of Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions? UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, 65-99.
16. Chengeta, T. (2017). Defining the Emerging Notion of Meaningful Human Control in Weapon Systems. New York University International Law and Politics, 852.
17. Clapham, A. (2006). Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors in Conflict Situations. International Review of the Red Cross, 491.
18. Dinniss, H., & Kleffner, J. (2016). Soldier 2.0: Military Human Enhancement and International Law. International Law Studies, 434.
19. Egeland, K. (2016). Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law. Nordic Journal of International Law, 102.
20. Ergi v. Turkey, 47533/99 (ECtHR 07 28, 1998).
21. Finogenov and Others v. Russia, 27311/03 (ECtHR 03 06, 2012).
22. Galliott, J., Beard, M., & Lynch, S. (2016). Soldier Enhancement: Ethical Risks and Opportunities. Australian Army Journal, 7.
23. Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy, 23458/02 (ECtHR 03 24, 2011).
24. Gould, A., & Shelton, D. (2013). Positive and Negative Obligations. In D. Shelton, The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (pp. 562-584). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Hassan v. the United Kingdom, 29750/09 (ECtHR 09 16, 2014).
26. Hassan, P. (1969). The Word Arbitrary as Used in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Illegal or Unjust? Harvard International Law Journal, 225.
27. Heyns, C. (2016). Human Rights and the Use of Autonomous Weapons Systems During Domestic Law Enforcement. Human Rights Quarterly, 366.
28. Hoven, J., & Santoni de Sio, F. (2018). Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4.
29. Human Rights Watch. (2014). Shaking the Foundations: The Human Rights Implications of Killer Robots. Geneva: HRW.
30. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. (2017). Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. Geneva: UN.
31. International Review of the Red Cross. (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: ICRC.
32. Isayeva v. Russia, 57950/00 (ECtHR 02 24, 2004).
33. Jasinskis v. Latvia, 45744/08 (ECtHR 12 21, 2010).
34. Jensen, E. T. (2020). Autonomy and Precautions in the Law of Armed Conflict. International Law Studies, 586.
35. Kanwar, V. (2011). Post-Human Humanitarian Law: The Law of War in the Age of Robotic Warfare. Harvard Journal of National Security, 13.
36. Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, 11082/06 (ECtHR 07 25, 2013).
37. Leach, P., Murray, R., & Sandoval, C. (2016). The Duty to Investigate Right to Life Violations across Three Regional Systems: Harmonisation or Fragmentation of International Human Rights Law? In C. Buckley, A. Donald, & P. Leach, Towards Convergence in International Human Rights Law (p. 32). Leiden: Brill.
38. Malgieri, G., & Comandé, G. (2017). Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 245.
39. Margulies, P. (2017). Making Autonomous Weapons Accountable: Command Responsibility for Computer-Guided Lethal Force in Armed Conflicts. In J. D. Ohlin, Research Handbook on Remote Warfare (p. 405). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
40. Maslen, S. C. (2014). The Use of Weapons in Law Enforcement. In S. C. Maslen , Weapons under International Human Rights Law (pp. 1-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. McCann v. the United Kingdom, 18984/91 (ECtHR 09 27, 1995).
42. McGregor, L., Ng, V., & Murray, D. (2019). International Human Rights Law as a Framework for Algorithmic Accountability. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 309.
43. Milanovic, M. (2011). Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Milanovic, M. (2012). Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda in Strasbourg. European Journal of International Law , 133.
45. Nachova and Others v. Russia, 43577/98 (ECtHR 07 06, 2005).
46. Nadege Dorzema et al v Dominican Republic, Series C No 251 (IACtHR 10 24, 2012).
47. Nsereko, D. (1985). Arbitrary Deprivation of Life: Controls on Permissible Deprivations. In B. Ramcharan, The Right to Life in International Law (p. 248). Leiden: Brill.
48. O'Boyle, M. (2004). The European Convention on Human Rights and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A Comment on Life After Bankovic. In F. Coomans, & M. Kamminga, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (p. 138). Antwerp: Intersentia.
49. Opuz v Turkey, 33401/02 (ECtHR 06 09, 2009).
50. Pad and others v Turkey, 60167/00 (ECtHR 06 28, 2007).
51. Pueblo Bello Massacre v Colombia, Series C No 146 (IACtHR 01 31, 2006).
52. Roff, H. (2013). Killing in War: Responsibility, Liability, and Lethal Autonomous Robots. In F. Allhoff, N. Evans, & A. Henschke, Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century (p. 354). London: Routledge.
53. Roff, H., & Moyes, R. (2016). Meaningful Human Control, Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons. London: Article 36.
54. Santo Domingo Colombia, Report No. 25/03, Petition 289/2002 (IACmHR 03 06, 2003).
55. Saxon, D. (2016). Closing the Accountability Gap: Individual Criminal Responsibility and Autonomous Weapon Systems. In F. Santoni de Sio, & E. D. Nucci, Drones and Responsibility Legal, Philosophical and Socio-Technical Perspectives on Remotely Controlled Weapons. London: Routledge.
56. Schabas, W. (2015). The European Convention on Human Rights - A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57. Scharre, P., & Horowitz, M. (2015). Meaningful Human Control in Weapon Systems: A Primer. Washington: Center for a New American Security.
58. Scovazzi, T. (2014). Human Rights and Immigration at Sea. In R. R. Marín, Human Rights and Immigration (pp. 212-260). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59. Sharkey, N. (2016). Staying in the Loop: Human Supervisory Control of Weapons. In S. Beck, R. Geis, H. Y. Liu, & N. Bhuta, Autonomous Weapons Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy (p. 34). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
60. Šilih v. Slovenia, 71463/01 (ECtHR 04 09, 2009).
61. Singer, P. (2009). Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution andd Conflict in the 21st Century. London: Penguin Books.
62. Solum, L. (1992). Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences. North Carolina Law Review, 1231.
63. Suarez de Guerrero v. Colombia, R.11/45 (HRCt 03 31, 1982).
64. Surden, H. (2014). Machine Learning and the Law. Washington Law Review, 92.
65. Tagayeva and Others v Russia, 26562/07 (ECtHR 09 18, 2017).
66. Tamburrini , G., & Amoroso, D. (2020). Autonomous Weapons Systems and Meaningful Human Control: Ethical and Legal Issues. Current Robotics Reports , 190.
67. The Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. (2016). Use of Force in Law Enforcement and the Right to Life: The Role of the Human Rights Council. Geneva: Geneva Academy.
68. Thurnher, J. (2014). Examining Autonomous Weapon Systems from a Law of Armed Conflict Perspective. In H. Nasu, & R. McLaughlin, New Technologies and the Law Of Armed Conflict (p. 213). The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
69. Thurnher, J. (2018). Feasible Precautions in Attack and Autonomous Weapons. In W. Heintschel von Heinegg, R. Frau, & T. Singer, Dehumanization of Warfare: Legal Implications of New Weapon Technologies (pp. 99-117). Berlin: Springer.
70. UN Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations: Israel, CCPR/C/79/Add.93 (UN Human Rights Committee 08 18, 1998).
71. Varnava and Others v. Turkey, 16064/90 (ECtHR 09 18, 2009).
72. Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (Vgt) v. Switzerland (No. 2), 32772/02 (ECtHR 06 30, 2009).
73. Wachter, S. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 92.
74. Winter, E. (2022). The Compatibility of Autonomous Weapons with the Principles of International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 1-20.
75. X v. the United Kingdom, 9787/82 (ECtHR 11 05, 1981).
76. Zimbabwe NGO Human Rights Forum v Zimbabwe, 245/02 (ACtHPR 05 25, 2006).