The landscape of modern warfare is rapidly changing, influenced heavily by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and automation. Since 2012, the international community has become increasingly aware of AI’s potential impacts on military operations, especially concerning autonomous weapons systems (AWS). Key documents, including the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) policy directives on autonomy in weapon systems and the crucial 2012 report by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, have underscored the urgent need for regulation and ethical considerations surrounding these technologies.
The ongoing discourse has highlighted a significant concern: the natural progression toward automated weapons that can independently engage in combat raises ethical and legal dilemmas. In 2017, a joint letter to the United Nations (UN) signed by 126 industry leaders advocated for preventive measures against an arms race in autonomous weaponry. Despite these calls, a robust international legal framework to regulate AWS remains elusive. Existing regulations, such as Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, relate primarily to civil rights and privacy, leaving critical gaps in addressing the use of AI in warfare.
Understanding Automated Weapons
Automated weapons, while increasingly prevalent, have varying definitions across jurisdictions. The UK Ministry of Defence, for instance, describes AWS as systems capable of achieving situational understanding comparable to humans. In contrast, the U.S. DoD emphasizes the capacity of these systems to select and engage targets without human intervention once activated. This divergence in definitions reveals the complexities in establishing universally accepted guidelines. Moreover, bodies like NATO have expanded the conversation to incorporate concepts of consciousness and self-determination in the context of warfare.
Examples of existing automated systems include Israel’s Iron Dome and Germany’s MANTIS, which excel in defensive operations, and the Swedish LEDS-150, used for active protection. However, as technology evolves, definitions must adapt to include not only combat scenarios but also non-conflict applications like South Korea’s Super aEgis II, a surveillance system deployed at the inter-Korean border. A comprehensive definition of AWS must anticipate future developments and account for sophisticated AI systems capable of human-like decision-making.
Regulatory Challenges
The conversation surrounding AWS regulation culminates at forums like the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), where states convene to evaluate frameworks for arms control. Despite the significance of these discussions, recent meetings, such as the one in May 2023, have produced limited progress. Although member states expressed support for upholding human oversight in the operation of AWS, they did not reach consensus on actionable regulations or comprehensive legal frameworks, leaving many concerns inadequately addressed.
Highlighting the urgency of this issue, states have reiterated the need for a robust legal framework that balances military innovation with humanitarian principles. The challenges arise not only from the technology itself but also from the varying political landscapes and priorities of nations, making unified agreements difficult to realize.
The AI Arms Race
The race for dominance in AI technology has taken on geopolitical implications. With leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin asserting that the nation leading in AI will dominate future global power, countries, particularly in East Asia and the United States, are heavily investing in military AI applications. China’s commitment of approximately $150 billion to AI advancement starkly contrasts with Russia’s comparatively modest budget for AI development, further intensifying the competition.
As nations gear up to invest staggering amounts in unmanned systems, the implications for warfare shift dramatically. Recent reports forecast the acquisition of tens of thousands of drones and automated weapons across the globe over the coming decade, with major military powers ramping up their procurement of lethal and surveillance drones. Such an influx not only redefines military strategies but also raises pressing questions about accountability and operational ethics on the battlefield.
With an ever-increasing reliance on drones like the Predator and Reaper, the U.S. military, for example, is projected to see drones make up a substantial portion of its air force by 2035. This trend is mirrored internationally, as countries like Israel and the UK expand their drone operations, showcasing the versatility of these platforms in both combat and reconnaissance.
The Spread of Drone Warfare
Today, drone warfare extends beyond traditional militaries to include non-state actors and various nations, marking a democratization of military capabilities. Countries previously unrecognizable in a military context, such as Turkey and Pakistan, have established their own drone production capacities. Furthermore, China is positioning itself as a global leader in drone exports, supplying combat drones to a multitude of nations across the Middle East and Africa.
Additionally, the emergence of AI in drone technology introduces new strategic dimensions. Recent reports have indicated that Ukraine is deploying AI-equipped drones capable of identifying targets autonomously, while Israel’s use of AI systems in conflict highlights the integration of technology into operational strategies. Despite fears over the implications of “killer robots” in combat scenarios, most current AI implementations still require substantial human oversight, mitigating some potential risks inherent in fully autonomous systems.
Nonetheless, the ethical and legal implications of deploying AI in warfare are considerable. Key concerns center around the inability of AI systems to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, raising the specter of civilian casualties in conflicts driven by algorithms rather than human judgment.
As we navigate this evolving battlefield, the call for a comprehensive legal framework to govern autonomous weapons continues to grow louder. The international community must remain vigilant, prioritizing regulatory measures to ensure that human oversight remains central to military operations involving AI technology.
The discussions surrounding the development and regulation of AWS and drone warfare highlight the pressing need for a thoughtful and proactive approach, balancing technological advancements with the ethical responsibilities that accompany them. The journey toward establishing effective regulations around AI and warfare is complex, but it is imperative for preserving humanity’s moral compass in the face of extraordinary technological advancements.
Kristian Humble is an Associate Professor of International Law in the School of Law and Criminology at the University of Greenwich, London. He is widely published on topics within international law including human rights, artificial intelligence, the right to privacy, populism, modern warfare, and international relations. He is also a contributor to the House of Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems.
Image credit: Lt. Col. Leslie Pratt, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.