Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems and Their Compatibility with International Humanitarian Law: A Primer on the Debate

Abstract

Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) are platforms that can perform military tasks and take decisions relating thereto on their own—using artificial intelligence. While such technology has not yet been developed, research is headed this way. Are these systems capable of complying with current rules under international humanitarian law (IHL)? Which factors of substantive legal provisions pose particular challenges and what parameters would LAWS have to meet in order to act lawfully? Core principles of IHL under treaties and custom are identified, explained and applied. As regards distinction, it is argued that research here offers the most promising advancements. However, the rule rests upon subjective determinations and ever-present doubt. One may also differentiate when examining proportionality: expected collateral damage is relatively objective and can already be calculated by software. In contrast, military advantage anticipated proves too complex and subjective. Furthermore, the open wording of this rule and its dependence on moral standards leads makes adherence to IHL currently impossible. It is suggested that extralegal issues should also be given sufficient consideration; details are however beyond the scope here. It is finally concluded that for the time being as well as the foreseeable future, LAWS are incompatible with IHL. Thus, humans must stay in or on the loop and retain (meaningful human) control in order to ensure observance of the law of armed conflict. Any technological achievement may nevertheless enhance the human-machine interface in the sense that humans and systems are partnered; thereby allowing for utilizing progress while securing lawful conduct at the same time.