Contextualising Legal Reviews for Autonomous Weapon Systems
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Missing Man: Contextualising Legal Reviews for Autonomous Weapon Systems DISSERTATION of the University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences and International Affairs to obtain the title of Doctor of Philosophy in Law submitted by Fredrik von Bothmer from Germany Approved on the application of Prof. Dr. Thomas Burri and Prof. Dirk Lehmkuhl, PhD Dissertation no. 4804 Difo-Druck GmbH, Bamberg 2018 The University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences and International Affairs hereby consents to the printing of the present dissertation, without hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein expressed. St. Gallen, May 22, 2018 The President: Prof. Dr. Thomas Bieger II Table of Contents I. Introduction: Key Categories and Terminology ............................................. 7 A. Just another New Emerging Weapon Technology? ................................... 12 B. Terminology and Definition ....................................................................... 18 II. Legal Challenges posed by AWS: IHL and Responsibility .......................... 27 A. AWS as Means and Methods of Warfare ................................................... 33 B. Illegality of AWS per se .............................................................................. 34 1. Basic rules for inherent illegality of weapon systems ............................ 34 a) Indiscriminate weapon by nature ........................................................ 34 b) Unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury by nature ...................... 35 c) Uncontrollable harmful effects ........................................................... 36 2. Martens Clause: Dictates of the Public Conscience ............................... 36 3. Preliminary Conclusion: No Illegality of AWS per se ........................... 39 C. Lawful use of AWS ..................................................................................... 39 1. Distinction .............................................................................................. 41 2. Proportionality ........................................................................................ 49 3. Precautions in attacks ............................................................................. 51 4. Implementation of suggested standards .................................................. 54 5. Preliminary conclusion: Compliance with IHL principles possible ....... 55 D. Challenges to the Responsibility for AWS ................................................. 57 1. Responsibility framework ....................................................................... 59 a) Articles on State Responsibility: a framework for AWS? .................. 60 b) Private military contractors: an example of unclear attribution .......... 61 c) Suggestions to include AWS in the ASR framework ......................... 63 (1) Attribution of AWS conduct to the state? ...................................... 63 (2) Responsibility for the acts of state organs operating AWS ............ 65 (3) “Due diligence” obligations to prevent violations ......................... 65 (4) Article 36 AP I new weapons review: a “link” for state responsibility? ........................................................................................ 67 III 2. Individual Criminal Responsibility ........................................................ 69 a) Potential addressees of responsibility ................................................. 70 b) Command responsibility ..................................................................... 71 3. Preliminary conclusion ........................................................................... 76 III. Multilateral Discussions in the UN CCW .................................................... 77 A. Structure of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons ............... 77 B. Discussions leading to Informal Meetings of Experts on AWS .................. 78 C. AWS on the CCW agenda ........................................................................... 82 1. Raising awareness of AWS .................................................................... 83 2. 2014 Meeting of Experts on LAWS ....................................................... 83 3. 2015 Meeting of Experts on AWS ......................................................... 84 4. April 2016 CCW Meeting of Experts on AWS .................................... 124 D. 2016 CCW Review Conference: GGE on AWS ....................................... 133 E. CCW GGE Proposals for Regulating AWS ............................................. 135 1. Pre-emptive Ban on AWS .................................................................... 137 a) Characteristics ................................................................................... 138 b) Enforceability .................................................................................... 144 c) Feasibility .......................................................................................... 146 d) Poor Precedent .................................................................................. 149 2. Drone Accountability Regime .............................................................. 155 a) Characteristics ................................................................................... 156 b) Enforceability .................................................................................... 161 c) Feasibility .......................................................................................... 164 3. Article 36 AP I as a means to regulate and restrict AWS ..................... 169 a) Characteristics ................................................................................... 172 b) Enforceability .................................................................................... 175 c) Feasibility .......................................................................................... 176 IV. Legal Review of New Weapons as a Means to Regulate AWS ................ 177 IV A. Scope of Article 36 AP I ........................................................................... 178 B. Application to AWS .................................................................................. 179 C. National Weapon Reviews during Procurement and Development ......... 181 1. The German Legal Review Process ...................................................... 181 a) Review Authority .............................................................................. 182 b) Character of the Review Decision .................................................... 182 c) Framework ........................................................................................ 183 d) Review Methodology ........................................................................ 184 2. The Swedish Legal Review Process ..................................................... 185 a) Review Authority .............................................................................. 185 b) Character of the Review Decision .................................................... 185 c) Framework ........................................................................................ 186 d) Review Methodology ........................................................................ 186 3. The Swiss Legal Review Process ......................................................... 187 a) Review Authority .............................................................................. 187 b) Character of the Review Decision .................................................... 188 c) Framework ........................................................................................ 188 d) Review Methodology ........................................................................ 189 4. The United Kingdom’s Legal Review Process ..................................... 189 a) Review Authority .............................................................................. 189 b) Character of the Review Decision .................................................... 190 c) Framework ........................................................................................ 190 d) Review Methodology ........................................................................ 192 5. The US Legal Review ........................................................................... 194 a) Review Authority .............................................................................. 195 (1) US Defence Acquisition Policies ................................................. 196 (2) Law of War Manual: Compliance Test ........................................ 196 (3) US Navy Implementing Instructions ............................................ 196 b) Character of the Review Decision .................................................... 197 V c) Framework ........................................................................................ 198 d) Review Methodology ........................................................................ 199 (1) Phase Zero: Coordination ............................................................. 200 (2) Phase One: The Request ............................................................... 200 (3) Phase Two: The Legal Review ..................................................... 201 (4) Phase three: Coordination ............................................................ 204 (5) Phase four: Dissemination and Retention .................................... 205