ROBOTIC REVOLUTION: DOES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TRIGGER INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT OR NON- INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT
Öz
The introduction of new forms of artificial intelligence (AI) military weaponry specifically autonomous weapon systems (AWS) can select and engage targets without human intervention therefore the application of lethal AWS incorporation with AI has revolutionized armed conflicts.The main concern regarding the military application of AI is the use of force should be maintained by only human soldiers. There is an urgent need to reinterpret the threshold for triggering an international armed conflict because AI technology unintentionally causes war during border control or surveillance operation. This article predominantly focuses on fully autonomous weapon systems which refer to human agents being removed from certain force applications. The main research questions in this article are first, is it possible that an AWS might, alone, spark an international armed conflict, thus bringing international humanitarian law into force? Second, can the criteria of organisation and intensity that give rise to non-international armed conflicts be met when AWS are controlled by non-state armed actors? This study will examine the research questions by focusing on the main areas of debate in the field of international law on AWS, specifically the compatibility of AI with the principles of humanitarian law, the determination of international responsibility, and ethical problems.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Non-State Armed Actors Autonomous Weapon Systems Artificial Intelligence Non-International Armed Conflicts
Kaynakça
- Amoroso, D. (2017). Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum Arguments Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems: A Re- Appraisal. Questions of International Law, 5-31.
- Anderson, K., Reisner, D., & Waxman, M. (2014). Adapting the Law of Armed Conflict to Autonomous Weapon Systems. International Law Studies, 386-406.
- Army Technology. (2021, 07 16). Brimstone Advanced Anti-Armour Missile. https://www.army-technology.com/: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/ adresinden alındı
- 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.
- Barnidge, R. (2006). The Due Diligence Principle Under International Law. International Community Law Review, 81-121.
- Beard, J. (2014). Autonomous Weapons and Human Responsibilities. Georgetown Journal of International Law , 617-678.
- Bothe, M., Partsch, K. J., & Solf, W. (2013). New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
- 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.
- Carron, D. (2018). When is a Conflict International? Time for New Control Tests in IHL. International Review of the Red Cross, 1019-1041.
- Chengeta, T. (2016). Accountability Gap: Autonomous Weapon Systems and Modes of Responsibility in International Law. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 1-50.
- Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4; General List No. 1 (International Court of Justice 04 09, 1949).
- Dinstein, Y. (2016). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
- Docherty, B. (2012). Losing Humanity The Case against Killer Robots. New York: Human Rights Watch.
- Evans, T. (2014). At War with the Robots: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Martens Clause. Hofstra Law Review, 697–733.
- Fleck, D. (2014). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Grimal, F. (2014). Missile Defence Shields: Automated and Anticipatory Self-Defence? Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 317-339.
- Henckaerts, J. M., & Beck, L. D. (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Geneva : International Committee of the Red Cross .
- Heyns, C. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions UN General Assembly, A/HRC/23/47 (9 April 2013). New York : United Nations.
- Horowitz, M., & Scharre, P. (2015). An Introduction to Autonomy in Weapon Systems. Washington: Center for a New American Security.
Robotik devrim: Yapay zeka uluslararası ya da uluslararası nitelikte olmayan silahlı çatışmayı tetikler mi?
Öz
Yapay zekalı askeri silahların, özellikle de otonom silah sistemlerinin yeni formlarının piyasaya sürülmesi, insan müdahalesi olmaksızın hedefleri seçebilmekte ve yok edebilmektedir. Bu nedenle modern ordular tarafından yapay zeka ile birleştirilmiş ölümcül otonom sistemlerin aktif olarak kullanılmaya başlanması silahlı çatışmalarda devrim yaratmıştır. Yapay zekanın askeri uygulamalarına ilişkin temel endişe, kuvvet kullanımının yalnızca insan askerler tarafından sürdürülmesi gerektiğidir. Yapay zekâ teknolojisinin sınır kontrolü veya gözetleme operasyonu sırasında istemeden de olsa savaşa neden olma olasılığı nedeniyle uluslararası silahlı çatışmayı tetikleme eşiğinin yeniden yorumlanmasına acil ihtiyaç vardır. Bu makale ağırlıklı olarak, insan unsurunun belirli kuvvet kullanma uygulamalarından çıkarılmasını ifade eden tam otonom silah sistemlerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu makalenin temel araştırma soruları şunlardır: Birincisi, otonom bir silah sisteminin tek başına uluslararası bir silahlı çatışmaya yol açarak uluslararası insancıl hukukun uygulanmasını sağlaması mümkün müdür? İkinci olarak, otonom silah sistemleri devlet dışı silahlı aktörler tarafından kontrol edildiğinde uluslararası nitelikte olmayan silahlı çatışmalara yol açan silahlı grubun örgütlenme ve yoğunluk kriterleri karşılanabilir mi? Bu çalışma otonom silah sistemleri hakkında uluslararası hukuk alanında yürütülen ana tartışma alanları olan yapay zekanın insancıl hukuk ilkeleriyle uyumluluğu ve uluslararası sorumluluğun belirlenmesi, etik problemler tartışmalarına da odaklanarak araştırma sorularına yanıt aramaya çalışacaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Devlet Dışı Silahlı Aktörler Otonom Silah Sistemleri Yapay Zeka Uluslararası Nitelikte Olmayan Silahlı Çatışmalar
Kaynakça
- Amoroso, D. (2017). Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum Arguments Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems: A Re- Appraisal. Questions of International Law, 5-31.
- Anderson, K., Reisner, D., & Waxman, M. (2014). Adapting the Law of Armed Conflict to Autonomous Weapon Systems. International Law Studies, 386-406.
- Army Technology. (2021, 07 16). Brimstone Advanced Anti-Armour Missile. https://www.army-technology.com/: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/ adresinden alındı
- 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.
- Barnidge, R. (2006). The Due Diligence Principle Under International Law. International Community Law Review, 81-121.
- Beard, J. (2014). Autonomous Weapons and Human Responsibilities. Georgetown Journal of International Law , 617-678.
- Bothe, M., Partsch, K. J., & Solf, W. (2013). New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
- 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.
- Carron, D. (2018). When is a Conflict International? Time for New Control Tests in IHL. International Review of the Red Cross, 1019-1041.
- Chengeta, T. (2016). Accountability Gap: Autonomous Weapon Systems and Modes of Responsibility in International Law. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 1-50.
- Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4; General List No. 1 (International Court of Justice 04 09, 1949).
- Dinstein, Y. (2016). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
- Docherty, B. (2012). Losing Humanity The Case against Killer Robots. New York: Human Rights Watch.
- Evans, T. (2014). At War with the Robots: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Martens Clause. Hofstra Law Review, 697–733.
- Fleck, D. (2014). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Grimal, F. (2014). Missile Defence Shields: Automated and Anticipatory Self-Defence? Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 317-339.
- Henckaerts, J. M., & Beck, L. D. (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Geneva : International Committee of the Red Cross .
- Heyns, C. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions UN General Assembly, A/HRC/23/47 (9 April 2013). New York : United Nations.
- Horowitz, M., & Scharre, P. (2015). An Introduction to Autonomy in Weapon Systems. Washington: Center for a New American Security.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Hukuk |
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 31 Temmuz 2024 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 26 Nisan 2023 |
| Kabul Tarihi | 31 Mayıs 2024 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2024 Cilt: 17 Sayı: 3 |
