Navigating the Ethical Landscape of Autonomous Weapon Systems

Efforts to address the ethical challenges posed by autonomous weapon systems (AWS) are intensifying. In December 2023, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution urging the Secretary-General to seek states’ views on addressing, among other issues, the ethical challenges these systems create. In April 2024, Austria will host a pivotal conference titled “Humanity at the Crossroads: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Challenge of Regulation,” aimed specifically at elevating these ethical dilemmas in discussions surrounding military technology.

The Role of Ethics in AWS Regulation

Ethical considerations have increasingly dominated the global discourse on the regulation of AWS. Since ethical concerns sparked early discussions around the need for regulation, references to ethics have consistently arisen in policy debates. However, despite years of dialogue, the arguments surrounding ethics remain underdeveloped compared to their legal counterparts. The transition from discussion to actionable regulatory measures indicates that while the ethical framework is acknowledged, its practical application and effectiveness in advancing regulation still fall short.

Unpacking the Stagnation

Three main factors contribute to the stagnation in understanding and addressing the ethical challenges of AWS:

1. Historical Precedent: The absence of historical examples where ethics significantly influenced arms control policy limits our collective understanding. Traditionally, ethical considerations in warfare, once raised, were absorbed into legal frameworks primarily concerned with compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

2. Legal Dominance: The regulatory discourse has been heavily dominated by legal arguments. Since 2017, the focus has concentrated around the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), where discussions predominantly center on legal implications, sidelining more nuanced ethical considerations.

3. Misconception of Ethics: Ethics is often framed as a competing set of rules against existing laws rather than a tool for moral reflection. This approach can lead to ethical discussions being treated as burdensome obligations rather than as pathways to illuminate and possibly reform existing legal frameworks.

Initiating a Dialogue

The UN has been examining the multifaceted implications of AWS for over a decade. Christof Heyns’ 2013 publication, “Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution,” was a significant catalyst. Focusing on drone warfare, he underscored the moral weight of allowing algorithms to make decisions over life and death. His assertions raised critical questions about our relationship with technology and the inherent moral dilemmas when delegating such powers to machines.

Following this groundwork, the international community convened its first multilateral meeting on AWS in 2014 at the UN in Geneva. Over the years, ethical implications have become a central theme, echoing across discussions by various states, organizations, and civil society. Concerns center around the humanitarian impact on civilians, algorithmic biases, and the potential for dehumanization.

The Ethical Policy Landscape

Despite its prominence, tangible progress regarding ethical concerns in AWS regulation has been elusive. While legal discussions advance, ethical reflections linger in uncertainty. This limbo is illustrated by the 2019 guiding principles adopted by the CCW Group of Governmental Experts, where ethical considerations are recognized but not integrated into the operative principles of the regulatory framework.

This predicament stems from several underlying issues:

• Ethics as Novelty: The current incorporation of ethics into arms control deliberations lacks historical precedence. Previous instances of ethical considerations have typically been absorbed by legal frameworks and security concerns.

• Legal Arguments Prevailing: Given that the CCW operates primarily within an IHL context, discussions are usually tethered to legal discourses. As such, ethical conversations often end up being tributary to popular legal arguments, rendering them less prominent.

• Fixed Conceptions of Ethics: Treating ethics as concrete directives creates obstacles to deeper engagement. This perspective can frame ethics as an additional burden rather than a source of insight for moral reflection and regulatory innovation.

A Call for Clarity

Ethics in AWS regulation is at a critical juncture. The relationship between law and ethics must be reevaluated to cultivate a more dynamic dialogue. Rather than viewing ethics as producing a parallel set of requirements, it can serve as a framework for reflecting on, and potentially enriching, existing legal norms.

Regulatory efforts in AWS are increasingly viewed as risk management exercises. This reflects an ethical stance toward technology, suggesting that using such systems is acceptable, assuming their improvement is possible. Ethical discourse can help clarify collective aspirations and guide regulatory frameworks toward shared, well-considered goals.

Efforts to tackle AWS challenges are expanding into new multilateral discussions, opening avenues for deeper ethical exploration. While a key milestone was achieved with the recent UN resolution, effective outcomes will depend on clarifying the role ethics should play in these debates.

AWS fundamentally alters how decisions regarding the use of force are made, necessitating ethical reflection to ensure that legal compliance does not become the sole guiding principle of our engagements with technology in warfare.