While the idea of ‘killer robots’ or lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that may select and
engage targets without meaningful human control may sound like science-fiction, the development of
these LAWS are actually closer to reality than we may believe. Just last year, prominent figures such
as Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak and Noam Chomsky signed a letter along with over
1000 experts in artificial intelligence calling for a ban on autonomous weapons that may revolutionise
warfare and warned that the deployment of such weapon systems are “feasible within years”. 1
In 2013, the Air Force B-1 bomber test launched the prototype of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile
(LRASM), which has the capacity to decide its target and proceed to attack the target without any
human intervention after its launch. 2 There is also the Super aEgis II, an automated turret from South
Korea, which can identify, track and destroy a moving target from four kilometres away. 3 While the
turret currently does require a human operator to unlock its firing ability through a computer system, a
senior engineer of the turret’s manufacturer has indicated that the Super aEgis II was built with an
auto-firing capacity. 4 The procedure of having a human operator to unlock the turret’s firing ability
was in fact added after requests for a safeguard to be implemented. 5
In light of the technological developments that can change what we believe to be fiction to become
non-fiction, LAWS has become a topical issue garnering attention around the world. In April this
year, 95 states along with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), various NGOs and
34 international experts participated in the third annual informal experts’ meeting of the United
Nations (UN) Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva. 6 One of the major
outcomes of the latest CCW meeting was the adoption of the recommendation to create a
Governmental Group of Experts (GGE) in 2017, which would transition the informal meetings into
formal diplomatic discussions at the UN. 7
During the CCW discussions, a pressing issue raised was the lack of common understanding as to
exactly what LAWS are or how they should be defined. 8 However, there appears to be a consensus
that fully autonomous lethal weapons systems do not yet exist 9 (although the emergence of weapons
such as LRASM and Super aEgis II suggests that we already have the technology to create LAWS).
As such, discussions around LAWS have been speculative about the possible developments of
LAWS. Nevertheless, more than 50 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have called for a pre-
emptive ban on LAWS. 10
Unlike previous calls for weapon control, the call to ban LAWS is more complex as it does not focus
on a particular weapon in existence or in use, but is instead looking at the possible development of
technology in the future. This call considers whether the human decision to kill should be allowed to
be delegated to an autonomous weapon. 11 It should be noted, however, that this does not suggest that it
is impossible to impose a ban before the existence of a technology. In the past, blinding laser weapons
and all forms of human cloning were banned fundamentally on moral, ethical, and humanitarian
grounds before the respective technologies existed or were in use. 12
Nonetheless, as it was pointed out at the CCW meeting, there needs to be a clear working definition or
characterisation of what is an “autonomous weapon” before there can be meaningful discussions in
this area. 13 Indeed, since the first CCW informal experts meeting in 2014, the issue of a definition,
along with human control, responsibility and legal review of LAWS has been on the agenda of the
UN conferences. 14
The current available definitions of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) include the definition
provided by the United States Department of Defence (DOD) which describes AWS as weapon
systems that “once activated, can select and engage targets without further interventions by a human
operator”, but may also include human-supervised autonomous systems. 15 Human Rights Watch
defines them as weapons that can select and engage targets without meaningful human control. 16
While these definitions may now allow further and more robust discussions regarding LAWS and
whether they should be banned, a more detailed legal definition will have to be agreed upon in the
future.
As political scientist Peter Singer said once in an interview, “Revolutionary technologies are game-
changers, not because they solve all problems, but because they force new questions upon us that a
generation earlier people did not imagine we would be asking ourselves, or our respective
organizations or nations.” 17 The development of weapons that may be autonomous in their activation,
selection of targets and initiation of lethal force is undoubtedly revolutionary for modern warfare. As
Singer has suggested, this new possibility brings forth questions regarding the potential moral,
psychological and legal implications as a consequence of LAWS, and now is as good a time as any to
start coming up with answers to those questions.
Mandy Lim
References
1 Smith, D., 2015. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk warn of 'third revolution in warfare' with autonomous weapons.
[Online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07- 28/stephen-hawking,- elon-musk- warn-of- ai-
weapon-arms- race/6652466
2 Markoff, J., 2014. Fearing Bombs That Can Pick Whom to Kill. The New York Times [Online]
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/science/weapons-directed- by-robots- not-humans- raise-
ethical-questions.html
3 Parkin, S., 2015. Killer Robots: The Soldiers That Never Sleep. BBC News [Online]
Available at: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer- robots-the- soldiers-that- never-sleep
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Vilmer, Jean-Baptiste Jeangène, 2016. Autonomous Weapon Diplomacy: The Geneva Debates. Carnegie
Council Ethics and International Affairs [Online]
Available at: https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2016/autonomous-weapon- diplomacy-geneva-
debates/#fn-11361- 1
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Asaro, P., 2012. On Banning Autonomous Weapon Systems: Human Rights, Automation, and the
Dehumanization of Lethal Decision-Making, in Ethics of 21st Century Military Conflict Special Issue on New
Technologies and Warfare,. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), pp. 687-709, 606.
12 Mary Ellen O’Connell, Banning Autonomous Killing-The Legal and Ethical Requirement That Humans
Make Near-Time Lethal Decisions, in The American Way of Bombing Changing Ethical and Legal Norms from
Flying Fortresses to Drones (Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue editors, 2014) (Excerpted), 233.
13 Vilmer, Jean-Baptiste Jeangène, 2016. Autonomous Weapon Diplomacy: The Geneva Debates. Carnegie
Council Ethics and International Affairs [Online]
Available at: https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2016/autonomous-weapon- diplomacy-geneva-
debates/#fn-11361- 1
14 Ibid.
15 United States Department of Defence, Autonomy in Weapon Systems, 1, 13-14.
16 Human Rights Watch, 2016. Killer Robots: The Case for Human Control. [Online]
Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/11/killer-robots- case-human- control.
17 Interview with Peter W. Singer: Director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution
(2012) International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), pp. 467–481, 469.
Recent Comments