![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Developments in artificial intelligence have ignited many debates on the use of autonomous weapons and ‘killer robots.’ However, before autonomous attack decisions can be explored, issues related to target selection need to be considered. Focusing the discussion on drones and artificial intelligence overshadows more fundamental issues. This paper therefore argues that the main ethical problem raised by autonomous drones do not come from the weapon system or technology itself. Instead, they stem from challenges of target identification. Thus, asking ‘what’s wrong with drones?’ is misleading as it focusses on the technology instead of the primary issue of target selection.
Acknowledgments
The author is extremely grateful to the two reviewers for their valuable comments. The author is also grateful to the team behind this special issue, especially the guest editor Ash Rossiter.
Disclosure statement
There are no conflict of interest in publishing this article. All opinions are the author’s own.
Notes
1. Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the 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, Final Report.
2. The full text of the “Open Letter to Professor Sung-Chul Shin, President of KAIST from some leading AI researchers in 30 different countries” is available online: https://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~tw/ciair//kaist.html.
3. His response stated: ‘As an academic institution, we value human rights and ethical standards to a very high degree, I reaffirm once again that KAIST will not conduct any research activities counter to human dignity including autonomous weapons lacking meaningful human control.’ Cited in Haas, “Killer Robots”.
4. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, “The Problem.”
5. “Open Letter to Professor Sung-Chul Shin.”
6. Cummings, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare, 3.
7. Ibid., 4.
8. Levin and Wong, “Self-Driving Uber Kills Arizona Woman in First Fatal Crash Involving Pedestrian.”
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Rossiter, “Bots on the Ground.”
12. Rossiter, “Robotics, Autonomous Systems Warfare.”
13. Amnesty International, UN: Decisive Action Needed.
14. Group of Governmental Experts, Report of the 2018 session, 5.
15. Ibid.
16. Cummings, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare, 4–6.
17. Rasmussen, “Skills, Rules, and Knowledge.”
18. Cummings, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare, 5.
19. Ibid., 6.
20. Ibid., 7.
21. Smith, “The Miracle on the Hudson.”
22. Cummings, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare, 6.
23. Ibid. 7.
24. Group of Governmental Experts of the High Contracting Parties to the 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, Report of the 2018 Session, 4.
25. Ibid., 5.
26. Group of Governmental Experts of the High Contracting Parties to the 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, Report of the 2018 Session, 5.
27. Sharkey, “Autonomous Weapon Systems,” 76.
28. Human Rights Watch, “Losing Humanity.”
29. See Sharkey, “Autonomous Weapon Systems” for a review of different interpretations of ‘human dignity.’
30. Johnson and Axinn, “The Morality of Autonomous Robots.”
31. Ibid.
32. Report of the Special Rapporteur, 14.
33. Alston and Shamsi, “A Killer Above the Law.”
34. Report of the Special Rapporteur, 15.
35. Ibid.
36. See note 28 above.
37. Ulgen, “Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons,” 5.
38. Ibid., 15.
39. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 136.
40. Ulgen, “Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons,” 19.
41. Ibid., 7.
42. See for example: Enemark, Armed Drones and the Ethics of War.
43. Enemark, Armed Drones and the Ethics of War, 60.
44. Ulgen, “Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons,” 19.
45. Strawser, “Moral Predators.”
46. See for example: Ulgen, “Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons”; Heyns, “Autonomous Weapons in Armed Conflict”; Human Rights Watch, “Losing Humanity.”
47. Ibid.
48. Sharkey, “Autonomous Weapon Systems,” 83.
49. Pop, “Autonomous Weapon Systems.”
50. Ibid., 84.
51. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 21.
52. Ibid., 41.
53. Group of Governmental Experts of the High Contracting Parties to the 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, Report of the 2018 Session.
54. Ibid., 4.
55. Ibid., 7.
56. Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, 4.
57. Ibid., 11.
58. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (I).
59. Melzer, Interpretative Guidance, 4.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid., 45.
62. Schmitt, “Deconstructing Direct Participation in Hostilities”; Melzer, Interpretative Guidance.
63. Rossiter, “Participation in Warfare.”
64. Bodnar and Pacho, “Targeted Killings (Drone Strikes),” 185.
65. Powell, My American Journey, 144.
66. See Yousaf, “U.S. Drone Campaign in Pakistan’s Pashtun ‘Tribal’ Region.”
67. Heller, “One Hell of a Killing Machine.”
68. Benson, “Kill ‘Em and Sort It Out Later,” 18.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Andree-Anne Melancon
Dr Andree-Anne Melancon is a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst where she teaches in the department of Defence and International Affairs. She holds a PhD in Politics from the University of Sheffield. Her thesis explored the jus in bello principle of discrimination in the context of drone strikes. Dr Melancon’s main research interest focus on military ethics, the just war tradition, drone warfare, and the law of armed conflict.