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 W Academy and was commissioned in the Regiment AND AR of Artillery in 1988. The Officer has attended Long L FGunneryA Staff Course, Defence Services Staff Weapon SystemsR CourseR and Higher Command Course. He carries a O vast experienceE 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”. AccordingC LAWto 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 autonomy.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, there are countries like the two. F 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 Artificial Intelligence 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 land mine 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 ‘Iron Dome’ 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. Israel 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.