Pages

4 September 2024

Understanding the Global Debate on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: An Indian Perspective

Charukeshi Bhatt and Tejas Bharadwaj

Militaries worldwide are increasingly developing advanced weapons systems powered by artificial intelligence (AI) while simultaneously revising their military strategies to accommodate AI’s integration. Of particular concern is the emergence of lethal autonomous weapons systems, or LAWS—a class of advanced weapons that can identify and engage targets without human intervention. Reports from conflicts in Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, and Libya suggest that weapons with some autonomous capabilities may already be in use. These include systems like Saker Scout, Gospel, and Kargu-II. Many countries including China, Israel, Russia, South Korea, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and the United States are also reported to be investing in building autonomous weapons.

The autonomous nature of these weapons has transformed human-machine interaction amid conflicts, complicating the application of international humanitarian law (IHL). Concerns have arisen over unsupervised use and potential system errors in these weapons systems that can cause unintended civilian casualties, escalate conflicts, and threaten peace. Many observers have also flagged their potential to go beyond human control, which could lead to rapid conflict escalations and probable flash wars. Further, there are concerns about these weapons being proliferated by nonstate actors such as terrorist and criminal groups. Despite these risks, some argue that LAWS could enhance IHL protections, while ethical debates question the morality of machines making life-and-death decisions.1 These humanitarian, legal, ethical, and security challenges spurred discussions within the UN Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS (GGE) under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 2016. The GGE, composed of High Contracting Parties to the CCW, has produced numerous reports and documents offering valuable insights into each party’s stance on regulating LAWS.


No comments:

Post a Comment