d w lan arfa Centre for Land Warfare Studor reies f s e t r u t d n ie e s C

CLAWS v ic on to isi 31 CLAWS ry h v d w throug lan arfa or re f s e t r u t d n ie e s C

CLAWS

vi n ct io or vis y through Issue brief No. 243 August 2020

Brig Ajay Sud is an alumni of the National Defence Lethal Autonomous d w Academy and was commissioned in the Regiment lan arfof Artillery in 1988. The Officer has attended Long Weapon Systemsr Gunneryar Staff Course, Defence Services Staff o Course ande Higher Command Course. He carries a vast experience in command, staff and instructional (LAWS)—A f Boon or appointments. Thes Officer is former senior fellow at e the Centre for Land Warfaret Studies (CLAWS). A Bane?r u t d Lethal Autonomousn Weapon Systems (LAWS) ie can be eexplained as weapons which can Key Points s independentlyC search and engage targets, employing onboard sensor suites and algorithms without human control. LAWS •• Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are can operate in the air, on land, on water, weapons which can independently search and engage underwater or in space. targets, employ onboard sensor suites and algorithms The concept of being autonomous varies without human control. hugely among different scholars, nations •• However, many countries have called for a pre-emptive and organisations. Heather Roff describes ban on development of LAWS, since these systems would be unable to adhere to the current laws of war. autonomous weapon systems as “armed weapon •• The legality over LAWS basically revolves around three systems, capable of learning and adapting fundamental issues: (a) International Humanitarian Law’s their functioning in response to changing rules of legal review; (b) Distinction; (c) Proportionality. circumstances in the environment in which •• India has highlighted the undermentioned issues with they are deployed as well as capable of making respect to LAWS at various international fora: (a) Need firing decisions on their own”. AccordingCLAW to Sfor increased systematic controls on international armed Mark Gubrud, a weapon system operating conflicts in a manner that does not widen the technological partially or whollyv without human intervention gap amongst states. (b) Issue of international security in is considered autonomous.ic He argues that a case of proliferation of such weaponn systems to Non-State weapon system does not needt to be able to make actors. (c) Need to resolveio issues with respect to definition o and mapping .is decisions completely by itself rin order to be v y • h called autonomous, instead it should be ttreatedhr o• uIn gthe Indian context, autonomous weapons could reduce the casualties and improve efficiency in defensive as autonomous as long as it is actively involved operations. These weapons could have a greater impact in in one or multiple parts of the preparation inhospitable terrain like in Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh process—from finding the target to finally firing. and along the Northern borders. The Ministry of Defence, UK defines LAWS as

The Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi, is an independent Think Tank dealing with national security and conceptual aspects of land warfare, including conventional & sub-conventional conflict and terrorism. CLAWS conducts research that is futuristic in outlook and policy-oriented in approach. CLAWS Vision: To establish CLAWS as a leading Think Tank in policy formulation on Land Warfare, National Security and Strategic Issues. Website: www.claws.in Contact us: [email protected] d w lan arfa or re f s e t r u t d n ie e s C

CLAWS v ic on 2 to isi ry h v CLAWS throug Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems ... systems that are capable of understanding higher level in future battlegrounds, there will be no people fighting intent and direction. and that the use of LAWS in warfare is inevitable.

It is felt that the introduction of autonomous weapons The near-autonomous defensive systems, adopted will change the nature of warfare and will also affect by several countries, are primarily used in defensive the understanding of laws of war. However, there role to intercept incoming attacks and respond to are number of countries which have called for a predetermined threats. Offensive weapon systems, in pre-emptive ban on development of LAWS, since combat, although do not defend an object or target but these systems would be unable to adherea nto thed wcan abe remployed and used anywhere. However, the current laws of war and also the factr as tol who would difference betweenfar offensive and defensive weapons be liable in case of wrongful deatho of civilians, needs is not much and theree are significant overlaps between much thought. However, fthere are countries like the two. s the US who argues that autonomous weapons have e Dual-use technologies like Artificialt Intelligence (AI), enormous benefits including reduction in cruelties and u r Machine Learning and Big Data Analytics are set improving defensivet capabilities. d n to transform the world and therefore,i the prospects Since India faces threats from both State and Non-State of development of LAWS have increasede manifold. e actors and a substantial portion of its International Amongst the various dual-use technologiess available, Borders consistsC of difficult terrain, Autonomous is the most significant technology Weapons may help India to undertake certain tasks in the context of LAWS, but not so developed so as to more effectively with minimal casualties. make weapon systems fully autonomous and beyond human control. However, in medium to long term, State of Technology and Current Weapon Systems AI can be expected to lend greater autonomy to The oldest automatically-triggered lethal weapon is machines. the used since the 1600s and naval mines used since the 1700s. Some of the systems in use since Issues Concerning LAWS the 1970s, like US’ Phalanx CIWS, can autonomously Ongoing research and development in the field of identify and attack incoming missiles, rockets, autonomous weapons have reached a critical stage artillery fire, aircraft and surface vessels based on requiring in-depth reflection on further technical criteria set by the human operator. Many missile development of such weapon systems. The debate on systems such as ‘’ also have autonomous LAWS raises the following fundamental, ethical and targeting capabilities. Automatic turrets installed on principle questions: military vehicles are called remote weapon stations.CLAW S l Can the decision over life and death be left to a The main reason for not having a ‘human in the machine? loop’ in these systemsv is the requirement of rapid i l n response. c Can autonomous weaponso function ethically? to isi Systems with higher degree of autonomyry would l Are machinesh v capable of acting in accordance to include drones or unmanned combat aerial vehicles th asr ouInternationalg Humanitarian Law? ‘Future Combat Air Systems’ which can autonomously l Can these weapon systems differentiate between search, identify and locate the enemy, but target combatants and others? engagement takes place only when authorised by mission command. It can also defend against enemy l Can such systems evaluate the proportionality of aircraft. minister Ayoob Kara in 2017 stated that, attacks? Israel was developing military robots, including ones l Who will be held accountable for proliferation of as small as ‘flies’. In October 2018, Mr. Zeng Yi, a senior such a weapon into the hands of Non-State actors? executive at Chinese Defence Firm, Norinco—said that d w lan arfa or re f s e t r u t d n ie e s C

CLAWS v ic on to isi 3 CLAWS ry h v throug

Legality of Autonomous Weapon Systems humanitarian law and international human rights law) Questions have often been raised regarding the is to protect the people. The regulation for conduct of legality of fully autonomous offensive weapons, hostilities, including regulating the choice of weapons, particularly those which can target and kill human starts with a societal decision of what is acceptable beings. The question about the legality is important or unacceptable behaviour, what is right or wrong. since the deployment of autonomous weapons will Subsequent legal restrictions are, therefore, a social fundamentally change the manner in which the wars construct, shaped by societal and ethical perceptions. are fought. These determinations evolved over time—what was nd wconsideredar acceptable at one point in history is not The legality over LAWS basically revolves la around f r necessarily the acaser today. However, some codes of three fundamental issues: e fo behaviour in warfare have endured for centuries—for l s International Humanitariane LAWS’ rules of legal example, the unacceptability tof killing women and review r children and of poisoning. u l Distinction t Ethical questions about LAWS hasd been viewed as n secondary concerns. The states are morei comfortable l Proportionality e e discussing whether new weapons coulds be developed While the legalC review addresses the weapon in compliance with international humanitarian law development; distinction and proportionality determine and also with the assumption that primary factors the legality of weapon deployment. limiting development and use of autonomous weapons, are legal and technical. Nevertheless, ethical Article 36 of the first additional protocol of Geneva arguments have been made both for and against Conventions, provides a framework for legal review LAWS. The primary argument for LAWS has been of new weapons. Two imperatives determine the basic an assertion that, they might enable better respect for lawfulness of a weapon system—“the rule against both international laws and human ethical values by inherently indiscriminate weapons” and “the rule against enabling greater precision and reliability than weapon weapons that causes unnecessary pain or suffering.” systems which are controlled directly by humans and Human Rights Watch and the UN Special Rapporteur therefore would result in less adverse humanitarian on extra-judicial executions have argued and called consequences for civilians. Another argument for the autonomous weapon systems as prima facie illegal LAWS is that they will help fulfil the armies to protect since they will never be able to meet the requirement the soldier. Ethical arguments against autonomous of laws of war, in any substantial manner. AlthoughCLAW weaponsS can be divided into two forms: Objections advances in AI might lead to weapon system, capable based on limits and technology to function within legal of such a subjective undertaking,vi making them truly constraints and ethical norms;n and ethical objections independent in nature–but thec tdevelopment of such that are independent of itechnologicalo capability. Since weapon would be illegal. However,o therer are others the technological v trajectoriesis are difficult to predict, who have argued that autonomy alone doesy not t renderhr oit’s uthe gtechnologicalh capability that may be of interest such weapons illegal. As per them, autonomous to the policymakers. Certain issues in this respect are: weapons might be better able to adhere to norms of l Removing humans from decisions to kill, injure international law, while some contend that it is too and destroy. early to argue over the legal issues since the technology itself has not been completely developed yet. l Undermining the human dignity of those combatants who are targeted and of civilians who Ethical Issues are put at risk of death and injury as a consequence Ethics and Law are intimately linked, especially of attack on legitimate military targets. when the purpose of law (such as international d w lan arfa or re f s e t r u t d n ie e s C

CLAWS v ic on 4 to isi ry h v CLAWS throug

l Further, increasing human distancing physically l Need to resolve issues with respect to definition and psychologically from the battlefield thereby, and mapping autonomy. enhancing the existing asymmetries. It is felt that, the robots and AI arms race has caused Should Autonomous Weapons be Banned geopolitical tension and fear across the globe. Many countries including entities such as Human Leadership in AI can give nations a military edge Rights Watch and the UN Special Rapporteur on which can lead to devastating consequences and extra-judicial execution, have called for a pre-emptive therefore, India does not want to lag behind–the ban on the development and use of autonomousand wrecenta developmentsr in AI, blockchain and emergent weapons. The US and the UK, though l they have technologiesf area testimony to that. not supported the outright ban, rhave agreed that r o Way Forward for Indiae such regulations are required. Moreover, any ban in f India’s approach to the sinternational regulation of order to be fully effective, must be supported and e weapon systems has been disarmamentt rather than upheld by all major powers, which seems highly u r arms control. India has opposed discrimination in the unlikely, since severalt countries have already started d structuring of Arms Control treaties by refusing to developing autonomous weapons. Since, the major i n sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treatye (NPT) and powers including India, China, and US, are e the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treatys (CTBT). non-parties toC the Ottawa Treaty, which is often cited as precedent of a pre-emptive ban, therefore, the call India’s usage or induction of LAWS would depend for a pre-emptive ban on the usage of autunomous upon the threat that India would face from time to weapons is still uncertain. time.

Another issue with respect to pre-emptive ban is that, In the Indian context, autonomous weapons could the full scope of automation and the manner in which reduce the casualties and improve the efficiency in automation could proceed, is not yet apparent. Thus, defensive operations. These weapons could have a a pre-emptive ban could put all the research, related greater impact in inhospitable terrain like in Jammu to any form of automation in the defence sphere, to and Kashmir, Ladakh and along the Northern borders. hold. Therefore, since the technology for autonomous Protection of space assets by autonomous systems weapons is still under development, it would be would be another field which is likely to tilt the balance reasonable to argue that banning LAWS would be in favour of the development of autonomous weapons. premature. Moreover, with China developing its own autonomous weapons, India is left with no choice but to develop its India’s Position on LAWS CLAWS own systems. Though Pakistan has called for a ban on Amidst the call for a ban on LAWS, India is planning autonomous weapons, it cannot be trusted, as has been to strengthen its AI-based weapon systems. The same v the case where Pakistan had called for nuclear-free was recommended by thei 17-memberc AI Task Force n t South Asia and simultaneouslyio developed its nuclear led by Mr. N Chandrasekaran, Chairman,o Tata Sons. is ry capability.h From v India’s perspective, a ban would be India has highlighted the undermentioned issues th withr ohighlyug impractical, given its security considerations respect to LAWS at various international fora: and the fact that it has already started developing such systems. l Need for increased systematic controls on international armed conflict in a manner that does However, LAWS does have its own share of drawbacks not widen the technological gap amongst states. when it comes to technicality—implementation, usage and maintenance. Legality and ethicality of the same l Issue of international security in case of proliferation must also be thoroughly assessed before taking up any of such weapon systems to Non-State actors. action. d w lan arfa or re f s e t r u t d n ie e s C

CLAWS v ic on to isi 35 CLAWS ry h v throug ... A Boon or A Bane?

Conclusion keeping its security situation in mind. At the same The legal and ethical questions surrounding LAWS time, India should contribute, at various international would continue to exist. But, notwithstanding this, India fora, in promoting a pragmatic international regulatory should continue with the development of LAWS, as mechanism on the development, use and trade of has been acknowledged by its defence establishments, autonomous weapons.

References 1. “Ethics and Autonomous weapon systems: An ethical basisnd for human w control”.a International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), April 3, 2018. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ethics-and-autonomous-weapon-systems-ethical-basis-human-control. la rf 2. Arvind Gupta, “India should take up r challenge of Lethal Autonomous Weapons a Systems”.r The Economic Times, February 15, 2018. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-should-take-up-challenge-of-lethal-autonomous-weapons-o e systems/articleshow/62924521.cms. f s 3. R. Shashank Reddy, “India ande the Challenge of Autonomous weapons”, Carnegie India (June 2016). https://carnegieendowment.t org/files/CEIP_CP275_Reddy_final.pdf.r u t d n ie e s C

CLAWS

vi n ct io or vis The views expressed and suggestions made in the articley are solely of the author in his personalh capacity and do not have any official endorsement. Attributabilityt of hthe contentsro lies purelyug with author.

d w lan arfa or re f s e t r u t d n ie e s C

CLAWS

Vi n ct io or vis y through Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) RPSO Complex, Parade Road, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi 110010 Tel.: +91-11-25691308, Fax: +91-11-25692347, Email: [email protected] Website: www.claws.in CLAWS Army No. 33098