Lethal autonomous weapon systems: landscape and perspectives
Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, firstname.lastname@example.org
elibrary_id: 276507 | ORCID: 0000-0002-5922-0791 | RESEARCHER_ID: D-4116-2019
Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, email@example.com
elibrary_id: 531653 | ORCID: 0000-002-3477-4763 | RESEARCHER_ID: Q-2240-2018
Article received: 2022.04.22. Accepted: 2022.09.01
Bogdanov K.V., Yevtodyeva M.G. Lethal autonomous weapon systems: landscape and perspectives. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 6. P. 67-80. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.06.06
The article was prepared within the project “Post-crisis world order: challenges and technologies, competition and cooperation” supported by the grant from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation’s program for research projects in priority areas of scientific and technological development (Agreement № 075-15-2020-783).
The active development of military artificial intelligence technologies brings the moment of the mass deployment of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) closer. There is no internationally recognized definition of LAWS, and this has led to terminological disputes behind which are hidden both military-technical and ethical-philosophical problems. The task of keeping control over autonomous weapon systems is complex, and must be addressed in interdisciplinary ways, simultaneously in several dimensions, considering operational issues, moral and ethical dilemmas, and legal collisions. All three types of considerations focus on the problems of meaningful human control and the attribution of responsibility for the application of LAWS. The problem of fictitiousness of nominal human control over complex technical systems using opaque functioning algorithms is analysed. Developers of the new weapons are resisting the creation of adapted regulations, claiming that existing international humanitarian law is enough to regulate the new field, making it difficult to impose additional restrictions on LAWS. Existing agreements to control the proliferation of technology are in fact only partially capable of serving as a tool for controlling LAWS. It was noted that in the case of LAWS, a powerful impetus is possible for the development of a special direction in arms control related to the legal aspects of attribution of responsibility for the misuse of weapons systems, which was not previously observed in the corpus of the international legal framework for arms control. In the context of the collapse of the post-Cold War arms control system, only certain concrete measures related to commitments to prevent the most destabilizing manifestations of LAWS (for example, equipping them with nuclear weapons) can be proposed in the short- and medium-term.
Autonomy, artificial intelligence and robotics: technical aspects of human control. (2019). Geneve: ICRC.
Benjamin, M. (2013). Drone warfare: killing by remote control. London: Verso.
Bode, I., & Watts, T. (2021). Meaning-less human control. Lessons from air defence systems on meaningful human control for the debate on AWS. Odense: Center for War Studies, South Denmark University.
Boulanin, V., & Veerbruggen, M. (2017). Mapping the development of autonomy in weapon systems. Stockholm: SIPRI.
Davison, N. (2017). A legal perspective: autonomous weapon systems under international humanitarian law. Perspectives on lethal autonomous weapon systems. UNODA Occasional Paper No. 30 (pp. 5-18).
De Sio, F.S., & van den Hoven, J. (2018). Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: a philosophical account. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00015
Fisher, J., & Ravizza, M. (1999). Responsibility and control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ivanov, D.V., Korzhenyak, A.M., & Lapikhina, E.S. (2021). Lethal autonomous weapons systems and international law. Moscow Journal of International Law, 3, 6-19. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2021-3-6-19
Kania, E. (2017). Battlefield singularity: artificial intelligence, military revolution, and China’s future military power. Washington, D.C.: Center for a New American Security.
Lee, P. (2018). The distance paradox: reaper, the human dimension of remote warfare, and future challenges for the RAF. Air Power Review, 21(3), 106-131.
Marra, W.C., & McNeil, S.K. (2012). Understanding the loop: regulating the next generation of war machines. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 36(3), 1139-1185. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2043131
McGregor, L., Murray, D., & Ng, V. (2019). International human rights law as a framework for algorithmic accountability. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68, 2, 309-343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589319000046
Osinga, F.P.B. (2007). Science, strategy and war: the strategic theory of John Boyd. New York, NY: Routledge.
The Military Balance 2021. (2021). London: Routledge.
Anthony, I., & Holland, Ch. (2015). The governance of autonomous weapons. In SIPRI Yearbook 2014. (Russ. ed.: Anthony, I., & Holland, Ch. Upravlenie avtonomnym oruzhiem. In Ezhegodnik SIPRI 2014: vooruzhenia, razoruzhenie i mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost (pp. 456-465). Moscow: IMEMO RAS).
Anthony, I., Bromley, M., Boulanin, V., & Grip, L. (2015). Humanitarian arms control. In SIPRI Yearbook 2015. (Russ. ed.: Anthony, I., Bromley, M., Boulanin, V., & Grip, L. Gumanitarnyi kontrol’ nad vooruzheniyami. In Ezhegodnik SIPRI 2015: vooruzhenia, razoruzhenie i mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost (pp. 630-641). Moscow: IMEMO RAS).
Arbatov, A.G. (Ed.). (2020). Kontrol nad vooruzheniyami v novykh voenno-politicheskikh i tekhnologicheskikh usloviyakh [Arms control in the new military-political and technological conditions]. Moscow: IMEMO RAS.
Golubenko, E.A. (2017). Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law. Vestnik Akademii voennykh nauk, 2, 101-106. (In Russ.)
Makarenko, S.I. (2016). Military robots – the current state and prospects of improvement. Systems of Control, Communication and Security, 2, 73-132. (In Russ.)
Peldán Carlsson, M., & Boulanin, V. (2020). The group of governmental experts on lethal autonomous weapon systems. In SIPRI Yearbook 2020. (Russ. ed.: Peldán Carlsson, M., & Boulanin, V. Gruppa nepravitelstvennykh ekspertov po smertonosnym avtonomnym sistemam oruzhia. In Ezhegodnik SIPRI 2020: vooruzhenia, razoruzhenie i mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost (pp. 582-595). Moscow: IMEMO RAS).
Yevtodyeva, M.G., & Oznobishchev, S.K. (2019). Military unmanned systems: current state, prospects for limitation and control. Moscow University Bulletin of World Politics, 3, 160-197. (In Russ.)
The Ten Aporias of Our Time. The Theory and Practice of Nuclear Deterrence. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No4
Policy and Arms Control. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No6
Civil control as mechanism of counteracting corruption: problems of realization in Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No1
The problem of subject of anti-system activity in modern philosophical thought. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No4
New Framework of Political Knowledge: Labor, Control and Vision of the Future. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No4