Man against machine: Debates in the expert community on the lethal autonomous systems

In the recent years debates surrounding the autonomous weapons systems development and regulation have gained a new momentum. Despite the fact that the development of such type of weapons continues since the twentieth century, recent technological advances open up new possibilities for development of completely autonomous combat systems that will operate without human in-tervention. In this context, international community faces a number of ethical, legal, and regulatory issues. This paper examines the ongoing debates in both the Western and the Russian expert community on the challenges and prospects for using lethal autonomous systems. The author notes that Russian and Western discourses on most of the issues have very much in common and diff erences are found mainly in the intensity of debates — in the West they are much more ac-tive. In both cases the most active debates focus around two issues: the potential implications of fully autonomous weapons systems including the unclear line of accountability, and the prospects for international legal regulation of the use of lethal autonomous weapons. Both the Russian and the Western experts agree that the contemporary international humanitarian law is unable to handle the challenges posed by aggressive development of the lethal autonomous weapons. 
All this points to the need to adapt the international humanitarian law to the new realities, which, in turn, requires concerted actions from leading states and international organizations.

1. Arkhipov V.V., Naumov V.B. 2017. Iskusstvennyi intellekt i avtonomnye ustroistva v kontekste prava: o razrabotke pervogo v Rossii zakona o robototekhnike [Artifi cial intelligence and autonomous devices in legal context: On development of the fi rst Russian law on robotics]. Trudy SPIIRAN, no. 6 (55), pp. 46‒62. DOI: 10.15622/sp.55.2. (In Russ.)

2. Golubenko E.A. 2017. Avtonomnye sistemy vooruzheniya i mezhdunarodnoe gumanitarnoe pravo [Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law]. Vestnik Akademii voennykh nauk, no. 2 (59), pp. 101‒106. (In Russ.)

3. Dereshko B.Yu. 2018. Ogranichenie smertonosnykh avtonomnykh sistem vooruzhenii: initsiativa dopolnit’ konventsiyu OON o ‘negumannom’ oruzhii [Limitation of deadly autonomous weapons systems: Initiative to extend the UN convention on ‘inhuman’ weapons]. Vestnik voennogo prava, no. 1, pp. 86‒87. (In Russ.)

4. Kozyulin V.B. 2019. Smertonosnye avtonomnye sistemy vooruzhenii: problemy sovremennogo mezhdunarodno-pravovogo regulirovaniya i perspektivy ikh resheniya [Lethal autonomous weapons systems: Problems of current international legal regulation and prospects for resolving them]. International aff airs, no. 2, pp. 82‒94. (In Russ.)

5. Ovcharov A.V., Kozlov A.V. 2019. Primenenie smertonosnykh avtonomnykh sistem vooruzheniya trebuet ugolovno-pravovoi reglamentatsii [The use of lethal autonomous systems weapons require criminal law regulations]. Military law, no. 5 (57), pp. 179‒186. (In Russ.)

6. Plaksa V.N. 2020. Pravovaya zashchita grazhdanskogo naseleniya i grazhdanskoi infrastruktury pri vedenii voennykh deistvii s ispol’zovaniem avtonomnykh sistem vooruzhenii [Legal protection of the civilian population and civil infrastructure in the conduct of hostilities using autonomous weapons systems]. Vestnik voennogo prava, no. 2, pp. 72‒81. (In Russ.)

7. Sinyaeva N.A. 2021. Avtonomnaya voennaya robototekhnika: istorikopravovye aspekty [The self-powered military robotics: Historical and legal aspects]. Voennoe parvo, no. 3 (67), pp. 265‒270. (In Russ.)

8. Sinyaeva N.A. 2020. Problemy primeneniya mezhdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava k avtonomnym sistemam vooruzheniya [Challenges for the application of international humanitarian law to autonomous weapons systems]. Pravo v vooruzhennykh silakh — voenno-pravovoe obozrenie, no. 12 (281), pp. 66‒75. (In Russ.)

9. Skuratova A.Yu., Korol’kova E.E. 2019. Smertonosnye avtonomnye sistemy vooruzhenii: problemy mezhdunarodno-pravovogo regulirovaniya [Lethal autonomous weapons systems: Problems of international legal regulation]. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal, no. 1 (124), pp. 22‒30. (In Russ.)

10. Sorochkin A.S. 2018. Avtonomnye sistemy vooruzheniya v kontekste norm mezhdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava [Autonomous weapons systems in the context of international humanitarian law]. Vestnik voennogo prava, no. 4, pp. 25‒33. (In Russ.)

11. Altmann J., Sauer F. 2017. Autonomous weapon systems and strategic stability. Survival, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 117‒142. DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2017.1375263.

12. Anderson K., Waxman M. 2013. Law and ethics for autonomous weapon systems. Why a ban won’t work and how the laws of war can. Stanford University Law Essay Series, no. 11, pp. 13‒351.

13. Arkin R.C. 2010. The case for ethical autonomy in unmanned systems. Journal of Military Ethics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 332‒341. DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2010.536402.

14. Asaro P. 2012. On banning autonomous lethal systems: Human rights, automation, and the dehumanization of lethal decision-making. International review of the Red Cross, vol. 94, no. 886, pp. 687‒709. DOI: 10.1017/S1816383112000768.

15. Benjamin M. 2013. Drone warfare: Killing by remote control. London, Verso.

16. Bergen L., Rothenberg D. 2014. Drone wars: Transforming confl ict, law, and policy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9781139198325.

17. Crootof R. 2016. Autonomous weapon systems and the limits of analogy. Harvard National Security Journal, vol. 9, no. 51, pp. 51‒83.

18. Galliott J. 2016. Military robots: Mapping the moral landscape. London, Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315595443.

19. Galliott J., MacIntosh D., Ohlin J.D. 2021. Lethal autonomous weapons: Re-examining the law and ethics of robotic warfare. Oxford, Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197546048.001.0001.

20. Galliott J., Scholz J. 2018. AI in weapons: The moral imperative for minimally — just autonomy. Journal of Indo-Pacifi c Aff airs, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 57‒67.

21. Heyns C. 2017. Autonomous weapons in armed confl ict and the right to a dignifi ed life: An African perspective. South African Journal on Human Rights, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 46‒71. DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2017.1303903.

22. Kaag J., Kreps S. 2014. Drone warfare. New York, John Wiley & Sons Publ.

23. Krishnan A. 2009. Killer robots. Legality and ethicality of autonomous weapons. London, Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315591070.

24. Leveringhaus A. 2016. Ethics and autonomous weapons. London, Palgrave Pivot. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-52361-7_2.

25. Margulies P. 2018. The other side of autonomous weapons: Using artifi cial intelligence to enhance IHL compliance. Legal Studies Paper, no. 182.

26. Perritt H., Sprague E. 2016. Domesticating drones: The technology, law, and economics of unmanned aircraft. London, Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315577999.

27. Sparrow R. 2007. Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 62‒77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x.

28. Suchman L.A. 2016. Situational awareness and adherence to the principle of distinction as a necessary condition for lawful autonomy. In: Geiss R., Lahmann H. (eds.). Lethal autonomous weapons systems: Technology, defi nition, ethics, law & security. Berlin, German Federal Foreign Offi ce, pp. 273‒283.

29. Tamburrini G. 2016. On banning autonomous weapons systems: From deontological to wide consequentialist reasons. In: Bhuta N., Beck S. (eds.). Autonomous weapons systems: Law, ethics, policy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, рр. 122–142. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316597873.