Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Debate Around Lethal Autonomous Weapons under International Humanitarian Laws

12/22/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Ishita Chakrabarty
Ishita Chakraborty is a guest writer for the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal’s Roundtable.
​

The first cross-boundary targeting through drones (targeting specific individuals and facilities in a different state through remote systems being operated by persons in another state) was conducted by the US in Afghanistan in 2001. Since then, drones have been deployed in direct combat operations, despite public outcry about the “imprecise nature” of targeting. An independent report published in 2017 noted how US-led coalition strikes have killed approximately 4000 civilians, while the US Central Command claims that civilian casualties have not been more than 484 [1]. Another report indicates US-led drone strikes in one case killed 150 civilians after repeatedly bombing a school in Syria [2]. In the year 2013, the UN Special Rapporteur had called for a halt on the development of “killer robots” (triggered automatically by the target without the user’s intervention), which he said had zero considerations for human dignity. Robots could never have a final say over matters of life and death [3]. The movement again gained traction, sometime around August, 2018, when 26 countries explicitly stood up to put a stop to the development of Lethal Autonomous Weapons, and more than 70 countries met at the UN to discuss the challenges involved in outlawing autonomous weapons [4].
The use of autonomous weapons violates the fundamental principles of jus in bello (laws of war) distinction, proportionality and precaution. The first mandates that attacks must always be directed against “military objectives” and not “civilians and civilian objects.” The second mandates that the intensity of attacks should be proportionate to the military advantage sought over the other party. Finally, the third mandates that those undertaking the attack should do everything feasible to verify that the object is a military object and the attack should be aborted when the status of the object appears uncertain [5].

One report noted how strikes through autonomous weapons have to be carried out several times until specific individuals can be targeted, resulting in more casualties than states usually claim, rebutting assertions of “preciseness” [6]. During a conference on the subject of intelligent defense systems, the same question on the legality of attacks, arose in the context of the Israeli “Iron-Dome” (a mobile missile defense system), and how its use completely ignored the military-civilian dichotomy. Another sentry system that Israel employs along its border with Gaza, “Roeh-Yoreh,” also comprises of prepositioned weapons that sees and shoots [7]. There have been instances of “signature strikes,” where individuals bearing specific characteristics associated with terrorist activities have been targeted through autonomous systems, without actually knowing their identities [8]. The US, for instance, looks at whether a person has been previously seen “giving out orders” or possesses arms or exhibits characteristics that believes is to be equated with a person’s affiliation to a terrorist group [9].

Since these systems are tasked with the selection and fire of targets, it is difficult for the users to determine particular targets at the exact moment the firing is launched. Autonomous weapons operate in the context of fixed standards. The sensor data is processed with the help of algorithms that enable the detection, tracking and classification of objects, by tallying the data with existing databases. So, any changes within these fixed environments will naturally lead to unpredictability in its functioning. To give an example, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), comprising primarily of the Geneva and the Hague Conventions, along with customary law followed by States and subsequent treaties, specifically provides that civilians and those rendered hors de combat (who because of reasons of injury or by choice no longer participate in the conflict) are to be exempted from attack at all times. This is a part of customary international law, a de minimis guarantee (the minimal protections that states are under an obligation to provide) offered under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Since the attacks can no longer be abrogated through human intervention once launched, autonomous weapons fail to take into account behavioral standards, such as the exact moment a person might decide on giving up their belligerent status. This would abrogate the standards of constant care and human diligence required under IHL. Peter Marguiles, an expert in National Security laws and Professor at the Roger Williams University School of Law), terms this as an exercise of “dynamic diligence” that is an obligation under the precautionary principle of jus in bello [10].

IHL prohibits the use of landmines, booby-traps, and munitions in the context of warfare since they cause unnecessary suffering and superfluous injuries. The thread that runs common to all these prohibited weapons is their functioning— they are set off by the targets and not by the users, providing no option for termination of attack. Autonomous weapons function in the same exact way. Shouldn’t they also be prohibited by the same reasoning?

Another point raised against the employment of autonomous weapons is that, with the development of complex technology and the asymmetrical nature of warfare (tilted in favor of the developing states), one party to the conflict can conduct cyber-attacks targeting the sensor systems within the autonomous weapons of the other party. Similarly, it is possible that because of technical malfunctioning within the sensor systems, targeting decisions of a party can be skewed. In the absence of any mission control software to detect such aberrations, catastrophic attacks can be inadvertently launched.

In the Advisory Opinion on the Construction of the Wall, which concerns the wall in Palestine, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opined that the occupying states in the context of an international armed conflict or the states within which internal armed conflicts take place, are under an obligation, to not digress from applying fundamental principles of human rights in the context of armed conflict situations. Therefore, states cannot arbitrarily take away the lives of individuals [11]. The sStates must fulfill their obligations by abstaining from employing such weapons, and even in the context of targeting decisions, they must undertake a two- way decision, as the Human Rights Committee has previously noted. First, by using data recovered from the remote systems, and second, by an on-ground direct verification process [12]. In fact, whenever possible, conventional methods of warfare should be preferred over the use of autonomous weapons, even if not fully autonomous.    

To conclude, the recent popular usage of autonomous weapons are unlikely to take into account the nuances and rules of IHL. In addition, there is no assurance that specific individuals, such as terrorists, will be eliminated because they often relocate to safer havens, while the civilians bear the brunt of the attacks. Since states cannot act illegally, even in situations of armed conflicts (and as a corollary must observe fundamental human rights principles), states should refrain from deploying and further developing lethal autonomous systems.

References:
[1] Daniel R Mahanty, Don’t loosen the rules on civilian casualties during drone strikes, (Nov. 19, 8:00 pm), https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/06/dont-loosen-rules-civilian-casualties-during-drone-strikes/138933/.
[2] Margaret Sullivan, Middle East civilian deaths have soared under Trump. And the media mostly shrug., The Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/middle-east-civilian-deaths-have-soared-under-trump-and-the-media-mostly-shrug/2018/03/16/fc344968-2932-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.de10e512604a.
[3] Christof Heynes, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, (Nov. 13, 2018, 11:30 am), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-47_en.pdf, paras. 118-126.
[4] Use of ‘Killer Robots’ in wars would breach law, say campaigners, The Guardian, Aug. 21, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/21/use-of-killer-robots-in-wars-would-breach-law-say-campaigners.
[5] Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977) 1125 UNTS 3 (Protocol I) art. 48, 51, 52, 57, 58.
[6] 41 men targeted but 1147 people killed: US Drone Strikes- the facts on the ground, The Guardian, Nov. 24, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147.
[7] Michael Mertes, What are Military Goals?, (Nov. 13, 2018, 2:30 pm) https://www.kas.de/veranstaltungsberichte/detail/-/content/was-sind-militaerische-ziele-.
[8] Kevin Jon Heller, One Hell of a Killing Machine: Signature Strikes and International Law, 11 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2013).
[9] US to continue ‘signature strikes’ on people suspected of terrorist links, The Guardian, July 1, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-continue-signature-strikes-drones-civilian-deaths.
[10] Peter Margulies, Making Autonomous Weapons Accountable: Command Responsibility for Computer-Guided Lethal Force in Armed Conflicts (Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 166, 2016), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2734900&download=yes.
[11] Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, July 9, 2004, https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf.
[12] International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War 89 (Dan Saxon ed., Brill Nijhoff 2013).

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons: USAF Photographic Archives https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MQ-9_Reaper_UAV.jpg

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​