Revisiting of State Responsibility in International Law in the Context of Responsibility Gaps in the Use of Autonomous Weapon SystemsRevisiting of State Responsibility in International Law in the Context of Responsibility Gaps in the Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems

Öz

The emergence of structures reinforced and supported by groundbreaking research on algorithms and artificial intelligence has had scientific, economic, and legal implications. Along with this, developments in autonomous weapon systems have gained a dizzying pace in the last decade. As a result of the application of artificial intelligence technology to many weapons and systems in the military field, autonomous weapon systems have gradually begun to be used in the fields of security, defense, and combat. However, as the autonomy levels in the functions of the mentioned weapon systems approach the level of full autonomy in line with the developing technology, legal discussions have also begun to increase. It has been determined that many states, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations have tried to define these newly emerging autonomous weapons and weapon systems, which have an increasing level of autonomy in their critical functions with different capabilities, from their own specific perspectives. It is anticipated that the autonomy in the critical functions of autonomous weapon systems will gradually increase with the developing machine learning and super artificial intelligence technology in the mentioned weapon technology, and the arguments that there will be a responsibility gap due to the human element gradually disappearing in the mentioned cycle in terms of wrongful acts arising from the use of the said weapons are also trying to gain a place in the doctrine. The study is dedicated to the examination of the current regime of state responsibility in light of the efforts to define autonomous weapon systems in the international platform at the UN; the discussions in the literature on whether autonomous weapon systems are state property or agents; and the Draft Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission. Because in international law, individual criminal responsibility arising from violations of international humanitarian law and the regime of state responsibility effectively complement each other. When the current state responsibility regime is meticulously re-analyzed through the study, it will be revealed that the current state responsibility regime has a wide legal arsenal that will also cover actions contrary to international law that may arise from the effective use of the autonomous weapon systems in question in new battlefields.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Autonomy
• Autonomous weapon systems
• Artificial intelligence
• International law
• State responsibility

Otonom Silah Sistemlerinin Kullanımında Sorumluluk Boşlukları Bağlamında Uluslararası Hukukta Devlet Sorumluluğunun Yeniden Analizi

Öz

Ufuk açıcı algoritma ve yapay zekâ konulu çalışmalarla perçinlenen ve onunla desteklenen yapıların ortaya çıkmasının bilimsel, ekonomik, hukuki yansımaları olmuştur. Beraberinde, otonom silah sistemlerine ilişkin gelişmeler son on yılda oldukça baş döndürücü bir hız kazanmıştır. Yapay zekâ teknolojisinin askerî alandaki pek çok silah ve sisteme uygulanması neticesinde otonom silah sistemleri güvenlik, savunma ve muharebe alanlarında da peyderpey kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Bununla beraber, belirtilen silah sistemlerinin gelişen teknoloji doğrultusunda fonksiyonlarındaki otonomi düzeyleri tam otonomi düzeyine yaklaştıkça hukukî tartışmalar da artmaya başlamıştır. Söz konusu yeni ortaya çıkan ve kritik fonksiyonlarındaki otonomi seviyesi farklı kabiliyetlerle artan otonom silahların ve silah sistemlerinin birçok devlet, uluslararası kuruluş ve sivil toplum örgütleri tarafından kendilerine özgü bakış açılarıyla tanımlanmaya çalışıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Otonom silah sistemlerinin kritik fonksiyonlarındaki otonominin anılan silah teknolojisinde gelişen makine öğrenmesi ve süper yapay zekâ teknolojisiyle giderek artacağı öngörülerek bahse konu silahların kullanımından doğan hukuka aykırı eylemler yönünden insan unsurunun belirtilen döngüde giderek kaybolacağından mütevellit bir sorumluluk boşluğu doğacağı savları da doktrinde kendine yer edinmeye başlamaktadır. Çalışma, otonom silah sistemlerinin BM nezdinde uluslararası platformda tanımlanma çabaları; otonom silah sistemlerinin devletin mülkü mü yoksa ajanı mı olduğu yönündeki literatürdeki tartışmalarla beraber Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonunun Devlet Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Taslak Maddeler ışığında günümüzde devlet sorumluluğu rejiminin incelenmesine özgülenmiştir. Zira uluslararası hukukta uluslararası insancıl hukukun ihlalinden doğan bireysel ceza sorumluluğu ve devlet sorumluluğu rejimi birbirlerini tamamlamaktadırlar. Çalışma ile mevcut devlet sorumluluğu rejimi titizlikle yeniden analiz edildiğinde; mevcut devlet sorumluluğu rejiminin anılan otonom silah sistemlerinin yeni muharebe alanlarında etkin bir şekilde kullanımından doğabilecek uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemleri de kapsayacak geniş bir hukuk cephaneliğe sahip bulunduğu ortaya konulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Otonom silah sistemleri
• Otonomi
• Yapay zekâ
• Uluslararası hukuk
• Devletin sorumluluğu

Kaynakça

1. 12 Ağustos 1949 tarihli Cenevre Sözleşmeleri ve ek protokolleri. (t.y.). https://www.ceidizleme.org/ekutuphaneresim/dosya/569_1.pdf
2. Akkuş, B. (2024). Uluslararası hukuk açısından yapay zekanın askeri uygulamalarına ilişkin devlet sorumluluğu. Yapay zeka hukuku (kamu) (ss. 360–410) içinde. Adalet Yayınevi.
3. Anderson, K., & Waxman, M. C. (2017). Debating autonomous weapon systems, their ethics, and their regulation under international law (Washington College of Law Research Paper No. 2017-21). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2978359
4. Banteka, N. (2021). Artificially intelligent persons. Houston Law Review, 58, 537–596. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/743/
5. Barbosa, L. V. F. (2023). Exploring the 2023 US directive on autonomy in weapon systems: Key advancements and potential implications for international discussions. CEBRI-Revista: Brazilian Journal of International Affairs, 7, 117–136. https://cebri-revista.emnuvens.com.br/revista/article/view/153
6. Bartels, J. (2019). International responsibility of states and artificial intelligence: A special emphasis on autonomous weapons systems. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
7. Bayrak, M. E. (2024). State responsibility for targeted killings by drones: An analysis through the lens of IHL principles. Law and Justice Review, 27, 81–126. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ljr/issue/82725/1419953
8. Bo, M. (2022). Are programmers in or ‘out of’ control? The individual criminal responsibility of programmers of autonomous weapons and self-driving cars. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4159762

9. Boutin, B. (2023). State responsibility in relation to military applications of artificial intelligence. Leiden Journal of International Law, 36(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S092215652200062X
10. Bryson, J. J., Diamantis, M. E., & Grant, T. D. (2017). Of, for, and by the people: The legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9214-9
11. Case concerning application of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43 (February 26). https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/91/091-20070226-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
12. Chengeta, T. (2016). Accountability gap: Autonomous weapon systems and modes of responsibility in international law. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 45, 1–50.
13. Chesterman, S. (2020a). Artificial intelligence and the limits of legal personality. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 819–844. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589320000366
14. Chesterman, S. (2020b). Artificial intelligence and the problem of autonomy. Notre Dame Journal on Emerging Technologies, 1, 210. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3450540
15. 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. (1980). https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-unoda-site/pages/templates/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/CCW%2Btext.pdf
16. Crootof, R. (2016). War torts: Accountability for autonomous weapons. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164, 1347–1402.
17. Dal, U. (2019). Uluslararası sorumluluk hukukunda uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemin devlete atfedilmesi [Doktora tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi].
18. Difference relating to immunity from legal process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 62 (April 29). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/100
19. Docherty, B. (2012). Losing humanity: The case against killer robots. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/reports/arms1112ForUpload.pdf
20. Docherty, B. (2015). Mind the gap: The lack of accountability for killer robots. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/04/09/mind-gap/lack-accountability-killer-robots
21. Duke, J. E. (2021). Autonomous robotics and the laws of war: Methods and consequences of regulating artificial intelligence in warfare. Global Security & Intelligence Studies, 6(2), 101–121. https://gsis.scholasticahq.com/article/31491.pdf
22. Dülger, K. (2014). Devletin uluslararası insancıl hukukun ihlalinden doğan sorumluluğu [Doktora tezi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
23. Dülger, K., & Sökük, Ö. T. (2024). Otonom silah sistemlerinin ve doğabilecek sorumluluk meselesinin uluslararası insancıl hukuk bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 485–513. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/andhd/issue/86405/1386667
24. Ekelhof, M. A. C. (2017). Complications of a common language: Why it is so hard to talk about autonomous weapons. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 22(2), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krw029
25. Erkiner, H. H. (2010). Devletin haksız fiilden kaynaklanan uluslararası sorumluluğu [Doktora tezi]. ResearchGate.
26. Fosberg, A. (2020). From Siri to sci-fi: Are lethal robots people too? Penn State Law Review, 124(2), 501–528.
27. Gaeta, P. (2023). Who acts when autonomous weapons strike? The act requirement for individual criminal responsibility and state responsibility. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1033–1055.
28. Geiss, R. (2016). Autonomous weapons systems: Risk management and state responsibility. UNODA. https://docs-library.unoda.org/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons_-Informal_Meeting_of_Experts(2016)/Geiss-CCW-Website.pdf
29. Gündüz, A. (2019). Milletlerarası hukuk. Savaş Yayınevi.
30. Güneysu, G. (2022). Otonom silah sistemleri: Bir uluslararası hukuk incelemesi. Nisan Kitabevi.
31. Güneysu, G. (2023). Yeni silahların tabi tutulması gereken hukukîlik denetimi ve otonom silah sistemleri. Düşünce Dünyasında Türkiz, 14(64), 81–105. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/turkiz/article/1258725
32. Güreşci, R. (2022). Uluslararası insancıl hukukun otonom özellikli silah sistemlerine uygulanmasına ilişkin temel sorunlar [Doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi].
33. Hammond, D. N. (2014). Autonomous weapons and the problem of state accountability. Chicago Journal of International Law, 15, 652.
34. Heyns, C. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/23/47). United Nations.
35. Homayounnejad, M. (2019). Lethal autonomous weapon systems under the law of armed conflict [Doctoral thesis, King’s College London].
36. Human Rights Watch. (2013, Nisan 15). Review of the 2012 US policy on autonomy in weapons systems. https://www.hrw.org/node/249346/printable/print
37. in den Bosch, R. (2024). Remarks of the Chair of the GGE on LAWS. UNODA. https://unodaweb-meetings.unoda.org/public/2024-09/Chairs%20remarks%20GGE%20on%20LAWS%2030.08.24-3pm.pdf
38. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2011). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/red-cross-crescent-movement/31st-international-conference/31-int-conference-ihl-challenges-report-11-5-1-2-en.pdf
39. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2014). Autonomous weapon systems: Technical, military, legal and humanitarian aspects (Expert meeting report). https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/4221-002-autonomous-weapons-systems-full-report.pdf
40. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2019). Autonomy, artificial intelligence and robotics: Technical aspects of human control. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/autonomy_artificial_intelligence_and_robotics.pdf
41. Johnson, J. (2022). The AI commander problem: Ethical, political, and psychological dilemmas of human-machine interactions in AI-enabled warfare. Journal of Military Ethics, 21(3-4), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2023.2175887
42. Kastan, B. (2013). Autonomous weapons systems: A coming legal "singularity"? University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2013(1), 45.
43. Kraska, J. (2021). Command accountability for AI weapon systems in the law of armed conflict. International Law Studies, 97(1), 407–447. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol97/iss1/22/
44. Kurtdarcan, B., & Mumcu, Ö. (2014). Geleceğin savaşları ve silahları. Uğur Mumcu Araştırmacı Gazetecilik Vakfı Yayınları.
45. Lee, J. (2022). Autonomous weapons, war crimes, and accountability. North Carolina Journal of International Law, 48, 1–26. https://journals.law.unc.edu/ncjil/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/05/Autonomous-Weapons-War-Crimes-and-Accountability-by-Jason-Lee-24.pdf
46. Malik, S. (2018). Autonomous weapon systems: The possibility and probability of accountability. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 35(3), 609–640.
47. Marauhn, T. (2014). An analysis of the potential impact of lethal autonomous weapons systems on responsibility and accountability for violations of international law. UNODA. https://unoda-documents-library.s3.amazonaws.com/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons_-Informal_Meeting_of_Experts(2014)/Marauhn_MX_Laws_SpeakingNotes_2014.pdf
48. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
49. McFarland, T. (2017). The status of autonomous weapons systems under international humanitarian law [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne].
50. Nollkaemper, A. (2003). Concurrence between individual responsibility and state responsibility in international law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(3), 615–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/52.3.615
51. Oimann, A.-K. (2024). Why command responsibility may (not) be a solution to address responsibility gaps in LAWS. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 18(3), 765–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-023-09710-7
52. Özer, A. (2019). Savaşlarda üçüncü devrim: Otonom silah sistemleri ve insancıl hukuk. TASAM. https://tasam.org/Files/Icerik/File/Gelecegin_g%C3%BCvenigi_%C4%B0GK_4_EKT_(6)_pdf_044826e2-84ec-42dc-9120-232d7e62ebd4.pdf
53. Pacholska, M. (2023). Military artificial intelligence and the principle of distinction: A state responsibility perspective. Israel Law Review, 56(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/is.2023.1
54. Perrin, B. (2025, Ocak 24). Lethal autonomous weapons systems & international law: Growing momentum towards a new international treaty. ASIL Insights, 29(1). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/29/issue/1
55. Pino Barranco, B. (2020). International responsibility of states and artificial intelligence [Master's thesis, Universitat de Barcelona]. Dipòsit Digital de la UB. https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/handle/2445/170430
56. Pirim, C. Z. (t.y.). Uluslararası sorumluluk hukukunda devletlerin ağırlaştırılmış sorumluluğu: Kuramsal bir değerlendirme. Academia.edu.
57. Powell, D. (2019). Autonomous systems as legal agents: Directly by the recognition of personhood or indirectly by the alchemy of algorithmic entities. Duke Law & Technology Review, 18, 306–331.
58. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (1998, July 17). 2187 U.N.T.S. 90.
59. Sassòli, M. (2014). Autonomous weapons and international humanitarian law: Advantages, open technical questions and legal issues to be clarified. International Law Studies, 90(1), 308–340.
60. Sati, M. C. (2024). The attributability of combatant status to military AI technologies under international humanitarian law. Global Society, 38(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2251509
61. Sayler, K. M. (2025, Şubat 1). Defense primer: U.S. policy on lethal autonomous weapon systems. Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11150/IF11150.14.pdf
62. Scharre, P. (2023, Şubat 6). NOTEWORTHY: DoD autonomous weapons policy. Center for a New American Security. https://www.cnas.org/press/press-note/noteworthy-dod-autonomous-weapons-policy
63. Scharre, P., & Horowitz, M. C. (2015). Autonomy in weapon systems (Working Paper). Center for a New American Security.
64. Schmitt, M. N. (2013). Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law: A reply to the critics. Harvard National Security Journal, 4, 1–37.
65. Schmitt, M. N., & Thurnher, J. S. (2012). Out of the loop: Autonomous weapon systems and the law of armed conflict. Harvard National Security Journal, 4, 231–281.
66. Schwarz, E. (2021). Autonomous weapons systems, artificial intelligence, and the problem of meaningful human control. Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence, 5(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.22618/tp.pjcv.20215.1.139004
67. Sehrawat, V. (2021). Autonomous weapon system and command responsibility. Florida Journal of International Law, 31(3), 1–23.
68. Sen, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence and autonomous systems: A legal perspective on granting personhood and implications of such a decision. DME Journal of Law, 4(01), 15–26. https://www.dmejournals.com/index.php/DMEJL/article/view/293
69. Shaw, M. N. (2018). Uluslararası hukuk (1. Baskı). Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
70. Spadaro, A. (2023). A weapon is no subordinate. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1119–1136. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad025
71. Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x
72. Sur, M. (2019). Uluslararası hukukun esasları. Beta Yayınevi.
73. Taddeo, M., & Blanchard, A. (2023). A comparative analysis of the definitions of autonomous weapons. In F. Mazzi (Ed.), The 2022 yearbook of the digital governance research group (pp. 57–79). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28678-0_6
74. Toscano, B. M. (2020). State agents or state ownership? How to consider drones and autonomous weapons systems when deployed by states? Distinction between armed conflict and law enforcement situations. KU Leuven Faculty of Law.
75. Türk Dil Kurumu. (t.y.). Spektrum. Güncel Türkçe Sözlük içinde. https://sozluk.gov.tr/?kelime=spektrum
76. United Nations. (2013). Responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts—General commentary. In United Nations legislative series (ss. 1–4). United Nations.
77. United Nations. (2017). Report of the 2017 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) (CCW/GGE.1/2017/3). https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g17/367/06/pdf/g1736706.pdf
78. United Nations. (2018). Report of the 2018 session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (CCW/GGE.1/2018/3). https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g18/323/29/pdf/g1832329.pdf
79. United Nations. (2023). Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems – prohibitions and other regulatory measures on the basis of international humanitarian law (“IHL”) (Working Paper CCW/GGE.1/2023/WP.4/Rev.2). https://docs.un.org/en/CCW/GGE.1/2023/WP.4/Rev.2
80. United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Lethal autonomous weapons systems (A/RES/79/62). https://docs.un.org/en/a/res/79/62
81. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (2014). Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons—Informal Meeting of Experts. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g14/048/96/pdf/g1404896.pdf
82. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (2022). Report of the 2022 session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (CCW/GGE.1/2022/2). https://unoda-documents-library.s3.amazonaws.com/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons_-Group_of_Governmental_Experts(2022)/CCW-GGE.1-2022-2_English.pdf
83. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (2024a). Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems – prohibitions and other regulatory measures on the basis of international humanitarian law (“IHL”) (Working Paper CCW/GGE.1/2024/WP.10).
84. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (2024b). Measures needed to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law and the identification of potential additional measures (Background Paper CCW/GGE.1/2024/CRP.4). https://docs-library.unoda.org/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons_-Group_of_Governmental_Experts_on_Lethal_Autonomous_Weapons_Systems_(2024)/CCW_GGE1_2024_CRP.4.pdf
85. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (2024c). Compilation of replies received to the Chair’s guiding questions (Non-paper CCW/GGE.1/2024/CRP.1). https://docs-library.unoda.org/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons_-Group_of_Governmental_Experts_on_Lethal_Autonomous_Weapons_Systems_(2024)/CCW_GGE1_2024_CRP1.pdf
86. U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). Directive 3000.09: Autonomy in weapon systems. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=726163
87. U.S. Department of Defense. (2023, January 25). Directive 3000.09: Autonomy in weapon systems. https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodd/300009p.pdf
88. U.S. Department of State. (2023, Kasım 9). Political declaration on responsible military use of artificial intelligence and autonomy. https://www.state.gov/political-declaration-on-responsible-military-use-of-artificial-intelligence-and-autonomy-2/
89. Uzun, E. (2007). Devletin milletlerarası hukuka aykırı eylefinden sorumluluğu [Doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi].
90. Van Den Hoven Van Genderen, R. (2018). Do we need new legal personhood in the age of robots and AI? In M. Corrales, M. Fenwick, & N. Forgó (Eds.), Robotics, AI and the future of law (pp. 15–55). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2874-9_2
91. Zimmerman, E. J. (2015). Machine minds: Frontiers in legal personhood. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2563965