Human Rights Groups Call for Ban of Killer Robots
Rapid technological innovation has revolutionized warfare; it has
pulled soldiers away from war’s front lines and gradually replaced them with
advanced weaponry. Drones, for instance, covertly strike targets around the
globe as their operators sit safely elsewhere. But humanity is now
on the cusp of developing “killer robots,” or fully autonomous weapons capable
of killing without operators, and human rights defenders want them banned.
In a report released on Thursday, Human Rights Watch (HRW)
and Harvard Law School jointly call for the weapons to be declared unlawful by
international treaty before they become a reality. Though fully autonomous
weapons do not exist yet, technology is moving in that direction; Israel’s Iron
Dome is programmed to respond to incoming explosives on its own andprojects looking to enhance the autonomy of
drones are in the works. The authors of "Mind the Gap: The Lack of
Accountability for Killer Robots" assert that under existing law, humans
who manufacture, program and command the lethal robots of the future would
escape liability for any suffering caused.
Criminal liability would
likely only apply when commanders purposefully use robots to violate
international law, which would be hard to prove, explained Bonnie Docherty,
HRW’s senior arms division researcher and the report’s lead author. In terms of
civil liability, it would be almost impossible, especially in the United
States, to hold someone accountable as members of the military and contractors
are given immunity from being sued by the victim of war. And when it comes to
product liability law, there are even greater hurdles to providing the
necessary evidence.
“Accountability is not
merely a legal requirement,” asserts Docherty. “It serves several important
purposes. Without accountability there is no deterrence of future violation of
international law, there is not retribution for victims who want to see someone
condemned for the suffering they experienced and there is no greater social
condemnation of individuals that used the weapons.”
The report argues that the
decision to kill a human should not be delegated to a machine. Not only can a
machine not be held legally accountable, but it is near impossible to ensure
the robot complies with international law. How would it determine the
difference between a soldier and a civilian? How would it calculate a
proportional response?
Many defense-minded analysts see the potential of free-thinking machines to make
nations more effective on the battlefield, relieve leaders of difficult
decisions and reduce casualties. But the report aggressively attacks these
perceived benefits.
While Docherty concedes
that machines are able to think faster than humans, she doesn’t think this is
necessarily a good thing. A robot could carry out an unlawful act before a
human could prevent it, for instance. Without the human ability to
differentiate between a combatant and civilian, she adds, these weapons could
actually endanger soldiers.
Docherty also rejects the
idea that the technology would save soldiers’ lives. By further removing
soldiers from war, she says, it becomes politically easier for countries to go
to war and increases the likelihood of conflict. “Other weapons, including
remote-controlled drones, also separate soldiers from the battlefield,” she
added. “While people have their own concerns about those, that’s another
technology that would have the same protecting affect.”
The authors call for a prohibition on “the development,
production, and use of fully autonomous weapons through an international
legally binding instrument.” The report recommends an outright ban rather than
regulation because once the technology is in existence, states will be tempted
to use them. And one stocked arsenal is the gateway to the weapon’s
proliferation and a never-ending arms race.
Docherty is optimistic
that her recommendation will come to fruition because there is precedent for
outlawing weapons—in 1995, blinding lasers were pre-emptively banned and
cluster munitions were outlawed in 2008. Additionally, this particular issue
has moved quickly through the international community. As the lingering
existence of cluster bombs shows, however, a U.N. ban isn’t a guaranteed
prohibition.
The report was released a week before an international meeting on
lethal autonomous weapons systems is set to take place at the U.N. in Geneva.
On April 13, a range of experts will discuss potentially adding fully
autonomous weapons to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Correction: This article
misstated the year cluster munitions were outlawed. It happened in 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment