Automated Warfare
Loading...
Authors
Lucas, George R. Jr.
Subjects
Advisors
Date of Issue
2014
Date
Publisher
Language
Abstract
In this Article, I review the military and security uses of robotics and “unmanned”
or “uninhabited” (and sometimes “remotely piloted”) vehicles in a
number of relevant conflict environments that, in turn, raise issues of law and
ethics that bear significantly on both foreign and domestic policy initiatives. My
treatment applies to the use of autonomous unmanned platforms in combat and
low-intensity international conflict, but also offers guidance for the increased
domestic uses of both remotely controlled and fully autonomous unmanned aerial,
maritime, and ground systems for immigration control, border surveillance,
drug interdiction, and domestic law enforcement. I outline the emerging debate
concerning “robot morality” and computational models of moral cognition and
examine the implications of this debate for the future reliability, safety, and effectiveness
of autonomous systems (whether weaponized or unarmed) that might
come to be deployed in both domestic and international conflict situations. Likewise,
I discuss attempts by the International Committee on Robot Arms Control
(ICRAC) to outlaw or ban the use of autonomous systems that are lethally armed,
as well an alternative proposal by the eminent Yale University ethicist, Wendell
Wallach, to have lethally armed autonomous systems that might be capable of
making targeting decisions independent of any human oversight specifically designated
“mala in se” under international law. Following the approach of
Marchant, et al., however, I summarize the lessons learned and the areas of provisional
consensus reached thus far in this debate in the form of “soft-law” precepts
that reflect emergent norms and a growing international consensus regarding
the proper use and governance of such weapons.
Type
Article
Description
Series/Report No
Department
Ethics & Public Policy
Organization
Identifiers
NPS Report Number
Sponsors
Funder
Format
Citation
Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 25:317
Distribution Statement
Rights
This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States.