DiscussionResponse

Identifying even more Common Ground: Autonomous Weapons must not be Exploited to their Full Potential!

A response to Sebastian Wuschka and Rebecca Crootof Felix Boor and Karsten Nowrot In order to avoid the undesirable consequence of becoming outmoded by newly invented methods and means of combat, the normative regime of the ius in bello has always been and is currently even more so dependent upon the ability to anticipate future technological developments in the area of weaponry. Against this background one can indeed readily agree with the widely …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Autonomous Weapon Systems and Proportionality

A response to Sebastian Wuschka and Rebecca Crootof Recently, two statements on autonomous weapon systems have been published on this blog. In his post, Sebastian Wuschka argues that, because they are not human, autonomous weapon systems “can never be entrusted with the performance of proportionality assessments under IHL”. In her response, Rebecca Crootof states that this is not even necessary, given that it is incumbent on the human commander alone to carry …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Autonomous Weapon Systems and Proportionality

A response to Sebastian Wuschka An autonomous weapon system is “a weapon system that, based on conclusions derived from gathered information and preprogrammed constraints, is capable of independently selecting and engaging targets.” In his recent post, Sebastian Wuschka argues that the use of such weaponry will necessarily violate the law of armed conflict—specifically, the proportionality requirement. Wuschka and I agree that, because artificial intelligence is not now capable of human-like reasoning, we …

READ MORE →

DiscussionKick-off

Proportionality Assessments under IHL – A Human Thing?

The employment of drones for targeted killings has triggered a debate on the use of lethal force without direct human presence at the battlefield. Regarding the legal framework for today’s remotely-piloted drone systems, this debate must be considered settled. Their conduct’s legal evaluation depends on the execution of each specific strike. Generally, their employment will only be legal under the law of armed conflict, IHL, and if IHL is complied …

READ MORE →