Judgment, liability and the risks of riskless warfare

Kalmanovitz, Pablo

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316597873.007

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are serious questions about whether autonomous weapons will adhere to the principle of proportionality because they are unable to sufficiently evaluate the likelihood of collateral damage and the attack's proportionality (Kalmanovitz, 2016). For an attack to be considered proportionate, the expected military advantage must not outweigh the expected harm to civilians or civilian property.…”

Section: 2risk Of Civilian Casualties and Damage To Civilian Infrastr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When it comes to protecting civilian populations during armed conflicts, the deployment of autonomous weapons poses serious challenges (Kalmanovitz, 2016). These systems' intrinsic flaws can make it difficult for them to understand the context and make moral decisions, which makes it difficult to take the required safety measures and reduce needless suffering.…”

Section: 4challenges In Protecting Civiliansmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of autonomous weapons makes protecting civilian populations more difficult. The efficacious execution of strategies aimed at shielding civilians from the aftermath of armed conflicts may be compromised by the constraints associated with comprehending contextual subtleties and rendering moral decisions (Kalmanovitz, 2016). This involves difficulties in determining the relative importance of military and civilian targets, determining the proportionality of attacks, and implementing the necessary precautions to avoid or reduce harm to non-combatants.…”

Section: 7complexities In Protecting Civilian Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Drones, Bots, and the Law: Charting the Terrain of Autonomous Weapon Systems in International Conflict

Yucel,

Jan,

Aslam

et al. 2023

SLPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the challenges and future possibilities of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) in the context of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It investigates AWS definitions, focusing on substantial human oversight and differentiating AWS from artificial intelligence. The significance of understanding IHL is underscored by the author, given the UN's directive for AWS adherence to legal constraints on the use of force. The paper also discussed the three pillars of IHL – discrimination, proportionality, and precaution – are examined, highlighting challenges such as the complexities of discrimination in a post-9/11 era and the limitations of automated systems in applying common sense. The paper concludes by laying the groundwork for a comprehensive understanding of the ethical and legal dimensions of AWS in relation to civilian protection.

show abstract

Section: 2risk Of Civilian Casualties and Damage To Civilian Infrastr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 4challenges In Protecting Civiliansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 7complexities In Protecting Civilian Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drones, Bots, and the Law: Charting the Terrain of Autonomous Weapon Systems in International Conflict

Yucel,

Jan,

Aslam

et al. 2023

SLPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, even if the use of AWS would result in negative outcomes that were unforeseeable, responsibility for the launch alone could be attributed within the chain of command (Dunlap, 2016;Kalmanovitz, 2017). As Schulzke (2013) points out, modern militaries already operate through "distributed responsibility," where commanders share responsibility for the actions of their subordinates.…”

Section: Hypothesis 2amentioning

confidence: 99%

Autonomous weapons and ethical judgments: Experimental evidence on attitudes toward the military use of “killer robots”.

Rosendorf¹,

Smetana²,

Vranka³

2022

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of autonomous weapons brings intriguing opportunities and significant ethical dilemmas. This article examines how increasing weapon autonomy affects approval of military strikes resulting in collateral damage, perception of their ethicality, and blame attribution for civilian fatalities. In our experimental survey of U.S. citizens, we presented participants with scenarios describing a military strike with the employment of weapon systems with different degrees of autonomy. The results show that as weapon autonomy increases, the approval and perception of the ethicality of a military strike decreases. However, the level of blame toward commanders and operators involved in the strike remains constant regardless of the degree of autonomy. Our findings suggest that public attitudes to military strikes are, to an extent, dependent on the level of weapon autonomy. Yet, in the eyes of ordinary citizens, this does not take away the moral responsibility for collateral damage from human entities as the ultimate “moral agents.”

show abstract

“…If this is the case, it is important to explore to what extent AI-controlled devices can operate within boundaries set by law. In this paper, we will particularly focus on one frequently-raised (Lewis, 2015;Kalmanovitz, 2016) legal concern: the question of whether such systems can properly comply with international humanitarian law (IHL), as it is often argued (Crootof, 2015;Szpak, 2020;McDougall, 2019) that incorporating many targeting principles such as distinction, proportionality and precautions into an AI is impossible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%