Retaining Human Responsibility in the Development and Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems: On Accountability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law Involving AWS

Abstract

It is undisputed that humans must retain responsibility for the development and use of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) because machines cannot be held accountable for violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). However, the critical question of how, in practice, humans would be held responsible for IHL violations involving AWS has not featured strongly in the policy debate on AWS. This report aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of that very question. This report explores how the two central frameworks structuring the ascription of responsibility for IHL violations—namely the rules governing state responsibility and individual criminal responsibility—apply to the development and use of AWS. The report aims to help policymakers (a) deepen their understanding of the conditions necessary to hold states and individuals accountable for IHL violations; (b) identify issues that would make IHL violations involving AWS development and use potentially difficult to discern, scrutinize and attribute; and (c) formulate policy measures that could help uphold respect for IHL and reduce challenges to holding actors legally responsible.

Responsibility of war industry for lethal autonomous weapons systems

“…Last but not least, challenges exist as to the gathering of evidence 198 . The black-box problem can prevent prosecutors from accessing the information on how the system arrived at a particular decision.…”

“… Marcinko, "Między humanitaryzmem a koniecznością wojskową,[198][199] "'Excessive' Ambiguity," 840. 115 Jefferson D. Reynolds, "Collateral Damage on the 21st Century Battlefield: Enemy Exploitation of the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Struggle for a Moral High Ground," Air Force Law Review, 56 (2005): 100.…”

Prospects for the global governance of autonomous weapons: comparing Chinese, Russian, and US practices

“…The global use of increasingly autonomous weapon systems "prompts a change in the relationship between human actors and technologies," a development which raises many complex questions spanning three broad literatures (Ekelhof, 2018, p. 88). First, there are debates about what these trends mean for the application of IHL principles, such as distinction between lawful and unlawful targets, responsibility for violations of international law, or precautions in attack (Bo et al, 2022;Boutin, 2022;Brehm, 2017;Crootof, 2015). Second, experts have been debating the ethical implications of AWS making critical decisions on the use of force, especially in relation to human dignity (Asaro, 2012;Rosert & Sauer, 2019;Sharkey, 2019).…”

Algorithmic Warfare: Taking Stock of a Research Programme

“…Contributors to this debate argue that "legal obligations are addressed to human beings" who, in any case, remain "accountable for harm done or infringements of the law" (Brehm 2017, 21). The question then becomes who the responsible human is when things go wrong (Bo, Bruun, and Boulanin 2022). It is generally argued that the group of humans to be held accountable starts with military commanders and political decision-makers but could also include engineers and programmers (Hammond 2015;Sparrow 2009;Walsh 2015).…”