Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-lqwgf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-12T06:40:17.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evitability of autonomous robot warfare*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2013

Noel E. Sharkey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This is a call for the prohibition of autonomous lethal targeting by free-ranging robots. This article will first point out the three main international humanitarian law (IHL)/ethical issues with armed autonomous robots and then move on to discuss a major stumbling block to their evitability: misunderstandings about the limitations of robotic systems and artificial intelligence. This is partly due to a mythical narrative from science fiction and the media, but the real danger is in the language being used by military researchers and others to describe robots and what they can do. The article will look at some anthropomorphic ways that robots have been discussed by the military and then go on to provide a robotics case study in which the language used obfuscates the IHL issues. Finally, the article will look at problems with some of the current legal instruments and suggest a way forward to prohibition.

Keywords

autonomous robot warfarearmed autonomous robotslethal autonomyartificial intelligenceinternational humanitarian law

Information

Type
Comments and Opinions
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 94 , Issue 886: New Technologies and Warfare , June 2012 , pp. 787 - 799
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The title is an allusion to a short story by Isaac Asimov, ‘The evitable conflict’, where ‘evitable’ means capable of being avoided. Evitability means avoidability.

References

1 Sharkey, Noel, ‘The automation and proliferation of military drones and the protection of civilians’, in Journal of Law, Innovation and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2001, pp. 229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Sharkey, Noel, ‘Cassandra or the false prophet of doom: AI robots and war’, in IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2008, pp. 14–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Article 50(1) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (hereinafter Additional Protocol I)

4 As a scientist I cannot exclude the notion that some black swan event could change my scepticism, but at present we certainly cannot rely on this as a credible option in discussions of lethal force and the protection of innocents.

5 See Sharkey, Noel E., ‘Grounds for Discrimination: Autonomous Robot Weapons’, in RUSI Defence Systems, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008, pp. 86–89Google Scholar.

6 Arkin, Ronald C., Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Systems, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton F.L., 2009, pp. 47–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Anderson, Mark, ‘How Does a Terminator Know When to Not Terminate’, in Discover Magazine, May 2010, p. 40Google Scholar.

8 Anderson, Kenneth and Waxman, Matthew, ‘Law and Ethics of Robot Soldiers’, in Policy Review, in press 2012Google Scholar.

9 See R. C. Arkin, above note 6.

10 Sparrow, Robert, ‘Building a Better WarBot: Ethical Issues in the Design of Unmanned Systems for Military Applications’, in Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2009, pp.169–187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

11 See K. Anderson and M. Waxman, above note 8.

12 Sharkey, Amanda and Sharkey, Noel, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Natural Magic’, in Artificial Intelligence Review, Vol. 25, No. 1–2, 2006, pp. 9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Garreau, Joel, ‘Bots on the Ground’, in Washington Post, 6 May 2007Google Scholar, available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501009.html (last visited January 2012).

14 Mark Tilden, personal communication and briefly reported in ibid.

15 Weiner, Tim, ‘New model arm soldier rolls closer to battle’, in New York Times, 16 February 2005Google Scholar, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/technology/16robots.html (last visited January 2012).

16 Marchant, Gary E., Allenby, Braden, Arkin, Ronald, Barrett, Edward T., Borenstein, Jason, Gaudet, Lyn M., Kittrie, Orde, Lin, Patrick, Lucas, George R., O'Meara, Richard, Silberman, Jared, ‘International governance of autonomous military robots’, in The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, Vol. 12, 2011, pp. 272–315Google Scholar.

17 See K. Anderson and M. Waxman, above note 8.

18 McDermott, Drew, ‘Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity’, in Haugland, J. (ed.), Mind Design , MIT Press, Cambridge, 1981, pp. 143–160Google Scholar.

19 See R. C. Arkin, above note 6, pp. 47–48.

20 Arkin, Ronald C., ‘Ethical Robots in Warfare’, in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 28, No. 1, Spring 2009, pp. 30–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 E.g. Murphy, Robin and Woods, David, ‘Beyond Asimov: the three laws of responsible robotics’, in IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 24, No. 4, July–August 2009, pp. 14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallach, Wendell and Allen, Colin, Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 See R. Murphy and D. Woods, ibid.

23 Task Force Report, ‘The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems’, Department of Defense – Defense Science Board, July 2012, p. 48, available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/autonomy.pdf (last visited January 2012).

24 See R. C. Arkin, above note 6, p. 174.

25 Ibid., p. 91.

26 Ibid., p. 176.

27 Ibid., p. 172.

28 Ibid., p. 259.

29 Ibid., p. 174.

30 Ibid., p. 178.

31 Ibid., p. 47.

32 McClelland, Justin, ‘The review of weapons in accordance with Article 36 of Additional Protocol’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 85, No. 850, 2003, pp. 397–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 I am uncomfortable with this expansion of the automation of killing for a number of other reasons that there is not space to cover in this critique. See, for example, Sharkey, Noel E., ‘Saying — No! to Lethal Autonomous Targeting’, in Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2010, pp. 299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See also the statement of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC), at the Berlin Expert Workshop, September 2010, available at: http://icrac.net/statements/ (last visited 1 June 2012).

35 Additional Protocol I. This was not signed by the US.

36 There is a touch of the hat to the idea that there may be ethical issues in the ‘unmanned systems integrated road map 2009–2034’, but no detailed studies of the law or the issues are proposed.

37 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, in force since 2 December 1983 and an annex to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. I thank David Akerson for discussions on this issue.

38 Boyne, Walter J., ‘How the predator grew teeth’, in Airforce Magazine, Vol. 92, No 7, July 2009Google Scholar, available at: http://bit.ly/RT78dP (last visited January 2012).

39 International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/ (last visited 16 May 2012).

40 Ibid., para. 105, subpara. 2E.

41 See N. Sharkey, above note 2.

42 Valery Insinna, ‘Drone strikes in Yemen should be more controlled, professor says’, interview with Christopher Swift for the National Defence Magazine, 10 October 2006, available at: http://tinyurl.com/8gnmf7q (last visited January 2012).