Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Law

INTRODUCTION. This research paper presents the authors view on the essence of the problems of modern international law regulation of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) and international arms circulation. The authors dwell upon various aspects of new technologies in the field of creating LAWS, outline the prospects for the solution of the current challenges, as well as give a legal assessment of the legality of new types of weapons, methods and means of warfare from the perspective of contemporary international law. The system and mechanisms of international law regulation of the military purpose products circulation are also analyzed in this scientific work.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The subject of this study comprises international treaties, international customs, general principles of international law and national legislation of states. The study also includes the analysis of international acts of different nature, reports and other documents of international organizations, national authorities, scientific and educational

literature. The methodological basis of this study is a wide range of research methods, namely: formal-legal, formal-logical, comparative-legal and historical-legal. In addition, the researchers apply system, structural and functional methods, as well as methods of analysis and generalization.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The result of the study is the conclusion about the perspectives of developing auniversal definition of LAWS, as well as a common approach to understanding their characteristics and parameters of human control, and also about the advantages of LAWS in the course of military operations and solving national security problems of states, primarily in terms of compliance with IHL rules, which all military personnel are required to strictly observe. It is also necessary to take into account the crucial role of the issues of secrecy and national security, while Article 36 of Additional Protocol I does not contain criteria for distinguishing new types of weapons from other types of weapons, for example, from those that have undergone multi-stage modernization. It can be stated that at present there are only separate and insuffi ently effective mechanisms of international law regulation due to their voluntary basis. Therefore, national export control mechanisms are of paramount importance for the process of regulating the circulation of military purpose products, which is an essential element of national sovereignty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The authors come to the following conclusions: the existing provisions of IHL are fully applicable to LAWS; responsibility for the use of LAWS should be borne by the person who manages the robotic complex or «programs» and gives the order to use LAWS, but the specific forms and methods of human control should remain at the discretion of states; Article 36 of Additional Protocol I provides extremely limited opportunities to prevent the creation of new weapons systems, does not require any reporting and control format; research and development of new types ofweapons are secret, and the acquisition or adoption of obviously or presumably indiscriminate weapons systems are not a violation, but rather a preparation for a violation or an activity of a controversial nature; further improvement of the international law regulation of arms circulation should be developed by creating mandatory universal mechanisms of international law regulation that would prevent the uncontrolled circulation and illegal distribution of weapons, including their sale to terrorists.

1. Alwardt C., Polle J. Internationale Rüstungskontrollbemühungen zu autonomen Waffensystemen: Defi Technik und sicherheitspolitische Implikationen. Security & Peace. – Sicherheit und Frieden. 2018. Vol. 36. Issue 3. P. 133139. https://doi.org/10.5771/0175-274X-2018-3-133

2. Bothe M., Marauhn T. The Arms Trade: Comparative Aspects of Law. – Revue Belge de Droit International. 1993. Vol. 26. Issue 1. P. 20-42.

3. Chun W.H., Papanikolopoulos N. Robot Surveillance and Security. – Springer Handbook of Robotics. Ed. by B. Siciliano B. and O. Khatib. Cham: Springer. 2016. P. 1605-1626. : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_61

4. Combe II P.C. Autonomous Doctrine: Operationalizing the Law of Armed Confl t in the Employment of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. – St Mary’s Law Journal. 2019. Vol. 51. Issue 1. P. 35-68.

5. Dinstein Y. War, Aggression and Self-Defence. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. 301 p.

6. Hayashi M. Export Control in the Arms Trade Treaty: Can It Have an Impact on the Prevention of Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law?. – Theory and Practice of Export Control. Ed. by D. Tamada and P. Achilleas. Singapore: Springer. 2017. P. 127-137. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-105960-5_11.

7. Jevglevskaja N. Weapons Review Obligation under Customary International Law. – International Law Studies. 2018. Vol. 94. P. 186-221.

8. Mull N.W. The Roboticization of Warfare with Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (Laws): Mandate of Humanity or Threat to It?. – Houston Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 40. Issue 2. P. 461-530.

9. Mussington D. The Intеrnational Control of the Arms Trade. Revue Belge de Droit International. 1993. Vol. 26. Issue 1. P. 43-57.

10. Nash T. The Technologies of Violence and Global Inequality. Sur: International Journal on Human Rights. 2015. Vol. 12. Issue 22. P. 115-122.

11. Nayan R. Global Strategic Trade Management. New Delhi: Springer. 186 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-3223926-0

12. Riebe T., Schmid S., Reuter C. Meaningful Human Control of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: The CCWDebate and Its Implications for VSD. – IEEE Technology & Society Magazine. 2020. Vol. 39. Issue 4. 2020, pp. 36-51. DOI: 10.1109/MTS.2020.3031846.

13. Roff H.M. Lethal Autonomous Weapons and Jus Ad Bellum Proportionality. – Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 2015. Vol. 47. Issue 3. P. 37-52.

14. Shvydun S. Infl e of Countries in the Global Arms Transfers Network: 1950–2018. –Studies in Computational Intelligence. Vol. 882. Cham: Springer. 2019, P. 736-748. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-36683-4_59.

15. Skuratova A.Yu. Korol'kova E.E. Smertonosnye avtonomnye sistemy vooruzhenii: problemy mezhdunarodno-pravovogo regulirovaniya [Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: problems of international law regulation]. – Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2019. No. 1. P. 22-30. (In Russ.)

16. Sultan A. Universalizing Nuclear Nonproliferation Norms. Cham: Palgrave Pivot. 2019. 169 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3030-01334-9

17. Umbrello S., Torres P., De Bellis A.F. The future of war: could lethal autonomous weapons make confl t more ethical?. AI & Society. 2020. Vol. 35. Issue 1. P. 273-282. Https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00879-x

18. Wood N.G. The Problem with Killer Robots. – Journal of Military Ethics. 2020. Vol. 19. Issue 3. P. 220-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2020.1849966

19. Wyatt A. Charting great power progress toward a lethal autonomous weapon system demonstration point. – Defence Studies. 2020. Vol. 20. Issue 1. P. 1-20. Https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2019.1698956

20. Yihdego Z.W. The Role of Security Council Arms Embargoes in Stemming Destabilizing Transfers of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW): Recent Developments and Challenges. – Netherlands International Law Review. 2007. Vol. 54. Issue 1. P. 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X07001155