Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Ensuring Accountability in the Ai Era

Jyoti Bhakta

Vit School Of Law, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vit Chennai

This Blog is written by Jyoti Bhakta, Law Student of Vit School Of Law, Vellore Institute Of Technology, Vit Chennai

1. Introduction

Rapid development in Artificial Intelligence has critical implications for many areas of expertise, including warfare. Autonomous weapons systems select and engage targets without humans in the loop of decision-making. These developments have raised crucial ethical, legal, and humanitarian issues as well as controversial regulations under International Humanitarian Law. This post shall discuss the challenges to International Humanitarian Law presented by autonomous weapons, analyze prospects for accountability, and make recommendations as to how one can ensure compliance with international law in AI times.

2. Understanding Autonomous Weapons Systems

Autonomous weapons systems differ from traditional weapons in that they can carry out decisions without human input. Some systems may operate with a human in the loop to make final decisions, while other "fully autonomous" systems can independently carry out attacks based upon preprogrammed algorithms and machine learning processes of any factor, Autonomous weapons systems promise to reduce human error, increase precision, and perform operations more efficiently than human-controlled systems that draw most attention.

However, when it comes to war and the delegation of decision-making to machines, there are considerable legal and ethical issues. As one would expect, the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity have to be applied to all military activities under International Humanitarian Law.

3. International Humanitarian Law and Autonomous Weapons

International Humanitarian Law stipulates the rules that govern how the parties to a conflict behave when engaging in hostilities and involves principles of proportionality, necessity, distinction, and humanity. While International Humanitarian Law, as a general principle, applies to all forms of armed conflicts, its application in the context of autonomous weapons has particular challenges.

3.1 Human Control: International Humanitarian Law dictates that the use of force shall at all times be under human control. Thus, where the use of force rests on decision-making independent of any human intervention, then this aspect is against the dictate of the principle.

3.2 Responsibility: States are responsible for the acts of their armed forces, including the use of autonomous weapons. The problem arises in determining who is ultimately responsible for the acts and omissions of an autonomous system.

4. Ensuring Accountability

To address autonomous issues with weapons, there must be explicit rules and mechanisms accounting for accountability. Some possible routes to do this would be:

4.1 New International Instrument: The creation of a new international instrument specifically meant to address the issues of autonomous weapons would provide the tool with an explicit legal document guiding on use and accountability.

4.2 Existing International Humanitarian Law: Existing International Humanitarian Law, encompassing command responsibility among other aspects, would apply in dealing with autonomous weapons, hence accountability would be ensured.

4.3 Technical Safeguards: The inclusion of technical safeguards, such as human-in-the-loop or human-on-the-loop controls, will ensure elements of control by humans over autonomous weapons systems.

4.4 Transparency and Accountability: Transparency in the development and use of autonomous weapons, along with mechanisms of accountability, would help to build public trust.

5. Legal Mechanisms: Article 36 Weapons Reviews

Another measure that may ensure Autonomous weapons systems comply with International Humanitarian Law is the legal obligation on weapons reviews. Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions requires countries to ensure that new weapons, means, or methods of warfare under development or which they may acquire accord with their obligations under the conventions.

To hold Autonomous weapons systems to this, the system would need to be highly tested and reviewed so that it is able to respect these three base principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. The tests must also ensure that the system can be relied upon concerning its proper application of International Humanitarian Law under different circumstances. However, such reviews are effective only if the process is thorough and the states are willing to open up their capabilities in Autonomous weapons systems.

6. The Challenges of Autonomous Weapons

6.1 Autonomy and Human Control These autonomous weapons systems, the levels of which have degrees of autonomy, seem to threaten the ability to provide for compliance with International Humanitarian Law by means of human control.

6.2. Proportionality and Necessity. The proportionality test component of the objective may often be problematic in the context of the employment of autonomous weapons when the system makes decisions in the action itself. Similarly for necessity, which demands that the use be strictly necessary to the attainment of a legitimate aim.

6.3. Distinction. The principle of distinction demands that autonomous weapons be able to distinguish between combatants and civilians. The prospect for civilian casualties, if the weapon's target-acquisition systems are imprecise or err, is vast.

6.4 Accountability for the activities of autonomous weapons systems may be hugely problematic, especially when it is not possible to attribute the decision-making task clearly to a human at the point of determination.

Conclusion

The rise of Autonomous Weapons Systems is characterized by an upheaval in the conduct of war which brings difficult questions to be addressed for International Humanitarian Law. Ensuring that autonomous weapons systems stay within the lines of legality and ethics requires more than just robust legal frameworks; it requires a commitment to maintaining human oversight and accountability. Without meaningful human control, the potential for International Humanitarian Law violations escalates while accountability lines dangerously blur.

References