The UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) recently met in Geneva to discuss on the future of autonomous weapons.
With polarized opinions among countries for its use and ban, it is essential to understand the validity of the demands.
What are autonomous weapons?
Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are designed as weapons, that once activated can select and engage targets without further human intervention.
They are also called the Lethal Autonomous Robots (LAR), robotic weapons, or killer robots.
LAWS are operable in the air, on land, on water, under water, or in space.
Reportedly, at least six states - the US, UK, Russia, China, Israel and South Korea - are already developing and testing autonomous weapons.
Another 44 countries, including India, are exploring their potential.
Why is there a call for its ban?
It is feared that countries would be driven to engage more frequently in military standoffs.
This is because, in autonomous weapons era, the fear of combat fatalities would no more be a deterrent for military engagements.
There is also a fear that rapid proliferation of these weapons would ultimately leave them in the hands of authoritarian regimes.
Furthermore, these weapons could develop as instruments of power and trigger countries to indulge in an Artificial Intelligence arms race.
The call for a ban draws support from the fact that the international community had, in the past, banned devastating weapons, such as biological ones.
Why is the call for a ban not fully justified?
Military Engagements - Political, geographical and historical drivers are far more likely to influence a state’s decision to enter into an armed conflict.
Autonomous weapons themselves are less likely to be either a deterrent or a driving force for military conflicts.
These weapons can, in fact, increase the cost of aggression, thereby deterring conflict in a way.
Authoritarian control - The argument that a ban might prevent such weapons from landing in the hands of a dictator is unconvincing.
LAWS rely on advancements in AI and machine learning.
And most of these developments are taking place in the civilian sector, with the potential for “dual-use” military capabilities.
Regulation - Autonomy will be introduced gradually into various functions of weapon systems, such as mobility, targeting and engagement.
It is thus currently impossible to define which kinds of autonomous weapons need to be banned given the absence of functioning prototypes.
Destructive weapons - Biological, or even nuclear weapons, by their very nature, are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants.
LAWS, on the other hand, with its technological sophistication and time, can meet the established International Humanitarian Law (IHL) thresholds of distinction and proportionate response.
Arms Race - It is undeniable that arms race has been under way for some time now and not going to be introduced newly by the autonomous weapons.
Inequality - A pre-emptive ban is only likely to compound inequity in military capability, with the bigger powers employing these weapons anyway.
Every member of the UN Security Council refused to consider a ban on autonomous weapons in the GGE.
This is a powerful indication of how unsuccessful a ban is likely to be.
What lies ahead?
Ultimately, the future of autonomous weapons will pivot more around questions of strategic value and less on morality.
Rather than mischaracterizing LAWS as new weapons of mass destruction, it is critical to develop principles to govern their use.
The focus must necessarily shift from controlling autonomy in weapons to controlling the lethality of their use.
Consequently, degree of necessary human control has to be identified and frameworks of accountability and military necessity should be considered.
