Search

The Ministry of Defence, specifically the Royal Navy, uses the ‘Duty Holder Structure’ to manage how it complies with deviations to maritime laws and health and safety regulations where military necessity requires it. The output statements ensuring compliance are ‘safe to operate’ certification for all platforms and equipment, and the ‘operate safely’ declaration for people who are suitably trained within the organisation. Together this forms the Safety Case. Consider a handgun; the weapon has calibration, design and maintenance certification to prove it is safe to operate, and the soldier is trained to be qualified competent to make predictable judgement calls on how and when to pull the trigger (operate safely). Picture those statements as separate circles drawn on a Venn diagram. As levels of autonomy and complexity are dialled up the two circles converge. Should autonomy increase to the point that the decision to fire be under the control of an Artificial Intelligence within the weapon’s software then the two circles will overlap. This paper details research conclusions within the overlap, and proposes a new methodology able to certify that an AI based autonomous weapons system is “safe to operate itself safely” when in an autonomous state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid progress of artificial intelligence (AI) has resulted in its integration into various stages of the media process, including information gathering, processing, and distribution. This integration has raised the possibility of AI dominating the media industry, leading to an era of "autonomous driving" within AI-driven media systems. Similar to the ethical dilemma known as the "trolley problem" (TP) in autonomous driving, a comparable problem arises in AI automated media. This study examines the emergence of the new TP in fully automated AI-driven media (FAAIM), recognizing the complexity of this problem given the nature of media content and its societal impact. To address this complexity, we propose the adoption of the theory of "meaningful human control," originally developed to address responsibility in the governance of lethal autonomous weapons systems, as a framework for governing FAAIM. By ensuring that humans can be held responsible for the operations of FAAIM, this paper aims to proactively confront the ethical challenges arising from FAAIM, identify potential solutions, and guide future research in media ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The possible future use of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) and the challenges associated with assigning moral responsibility leads to several debates. Some authors argue that the highly autonomous capability of such systems may lead to a so-called responsibility gap in situations where LAWS cause serious violations of international humanitarian law. One proposed solution is the doctrine of command responsibility. Despite the doctrine's original development to govern human interactions on the battlefield, it is worth considering whether the doctrine of command responsibility could provide a solution by applying the notion analogously to LAWS. A fundamental condition underpinning the doctrine's application is the control requirement, stipulating that a superior must exert some degree of control over subordinates. The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth analysis of this control condition and assess whether it leads to the impossibility of applying the doctrine of command responsibility to LAWS. To this end, the first section briefly introduces the topic of LAWS and responsibility gaps. The subsequent section provides a concise overview of the doctrine itself and the conditions typically necessitated for its application. In the third section, a comprehensive scrutiny of the control requirement is undertaken through examination of key case law, examining how the concept has been interpreted. Finally, the fourth section delves into the evaluation of commanders' potential to exert effective control over their (non-human) subordinates. Based on this, the feasibility of considering command responsibility as a viable solution is assessed, aiming to determine whether its application should be prima facie excluded or warrants further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a list of contributors to the journal International Affairs, who have expertise in various fields such as international relations, scientific research, environmental policy, cybersecurity, war studies, and political science. Their research interests cover a wide range of topics including global governance, circular economy, climate change, digital development, and conflict and peace. The contributors have published extensively in academic journals and have conducted research in different regions around the world. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Araucaria is the property of Araucaria-Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofia, Politica y Humanidades and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

"Feminist Theory and International Law: Posthuman Perspectives" by Emily Jones explores the intersection of feminist theory, posthumanism, and international law. The book builds upon existing scholarship in the field and offers alternative ways of analyzing and approaching international law. Jones focuses on two case studies, international environmental law and the regulation of military technologies, to highlight the limitations of traditional legal concepts and the potential for posthumanist perspectives to challenge anthropocentric and patriarchal norms. The book is well-researched and relevant for international lawyers, legal theorists, and those interested in posthumanist theory and feminism. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the challenges of security governance and strategic stability posed by artificial intelligence (AI) in the context of major-power competition, specifically focusing on the United States and China. It discusses the impact of AI development and governance on the international system, including the US ban on advanced AI accelerator chip sales to China and restrictions on sending sensitive US data to China. The article emphasizes the need for effective AI security governance, global collaboration, and consensus to address these challenges. It also highlights the different models of AI security governance adopted by the US and China, reflecting their choices in balancing innovation, risk management, privacy protection, and security needs. The document emphasizes the importance of cooperation between the two countries in AI governance to contribute to global AI security governance. [Extracted from the article]

This article describes a new and innovative methodology for calibrating trust in ethical actions by Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS). For the foreseeable future, LAWS will require human operators for mission planning, decision-making, and supervisory control; yet humans lack the cognitive bandwidth and processing speed to make prompt, real-time ethical decisions. As a result, trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be required to support ethical decision-making. We use a Bayesian ethical decision model for: (1) human setting of ethical preferences and thresholds in accordance with Laws of War and tactical criteria; and (2) highlighting the factors that contribute to strike/no-strike recommendations for human evaluation. The model can perform an ethical analysis, provide a quantitative ethical strike/no-strike score, and recommend actions to reduce decision uncertainty. In this article, we describe successful initial evaluation trials of the Bayesian model and of a human interface for interaction with the model. Our Bayesian ethical decision model has an immediate application in wargames; the model can also be used to train operators in understanding the principles and key factors relevant to ethical decision-making; and it may eventually be used in actual military operations employing LAWS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pope Francis intervenes in the G7 session on artificial intelligence, highlighting the importance of maintaining human control over AI decisions to protect human dignity. He warns about the use of lethal autonomous weapons and advocates for directing AI towards the common good. He emphasizes the complexity of AI and the need for ethics in its implementation to avoid negative consequences. The importance of strong regulation to ensure an ethical and fair future in the use of artificial intelligence is emphasized. [Extracted from the article]

We seem to be on the cusp of an AI-driven revolution in military affairs. Scholars have explored many aspects of this revolution but one of the most vibrant debates has addressed the question of lethal autonomous weapons. Some scholars believe that autonomous weapons, and especially autonomous drone swarms, are about to colonise the battlefield. This paper assesses this argument. It identifies three common mistakes in discussions of lethal autonomy. Scholars overestimate the capability of autonomous drone swarms. They underestimate their dependence on other weapon systems. Finally, they presume that autonomous weapons will favour the offence. This paper rejects all three claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The editorial discusses human resistance to change, citing historical examples such as the printing press and the internet. It explores the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on various aspects of society, including dentistry. The integration of AI into dentistry is seen as a way to enhance treatment planning, improve patient outcomes, and elevate the role of dental professionals. The article emphasizes that AI should be viewed as a tool to complement and enhance human care, rather than replace it. [Extracted from the article]

References to the Terminator films are central to Western imaginaries of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). The puzzle of whether references to the Terminator franchise have featured in the United States' international regulatory discourse on these technologies nevertheless remains underexplored. Bringing the growing study of AI narratives into a greater dialogue with the International Relations literature on popular culture and world politics, this article unpacks the repository of different stories told about intelligent machines in the first two Terminator films. Through an interpretivist analysis of this material, we examine whether these AI narratives have featured in the US written contributions to the international regulatory debates on LAWS at the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in the period between 2014 and 2022. Our analysis highlights how hopeful stories about what we coin 'machine guardians' have been mirrored in these statements: LAWS development has been presented as a means of protecting humans from physical harm, enacting the commands of human decision makers and using force with superhuman levels of accuracy. This suggests that, contrary to existing interpretations, the various stories told about intelligent machines in the Terminator franchise can be mobilised to both support and oppose the possible regulation of these technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of the current state of artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and the growing concerns surrounding its use. It acknowledges the popularity and investment in AIED but also highlights the pushback from students, teachers, and critics who are worried about the societal implications of AI. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding different perspectives and engaging in constructive dialogue with critics. It also mentions the funding provided by CAUL and its Member Institutions for Open Access. The publisher, Springer Nature, remains neutral and the information is presented by Neil Selwyn. [Extracted from the article]

Regulation of military AI may take place in three ways. First, existing rules and principles in IHL is already or could be extended via reinterpretation to apply to military AI; second, new AI regulation may appear via "add-ons" to existing rules, finally, regulation of military AI may appear as a completely new framework, either through new state behavior that results in customary international law or through a new legal act or treaty. By introducing this typology, one may identify possible manners of regulation that are presently under-researched and/or ignored, for example how Rules of Engagement (ROE) may be a way to control the use of military AI. Expanding on existing scholarship, the articles discusses how military AI may operate under different forms of military command and control systems, how regulation of military AI is not only a question of "means" but also "methods" of warfare and how the doctrine of supervisory responsibility may go beyond the doctrine of command responsibility. In the case that fully-automated Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) are available and considered for use, it is suggested that their use should be prohibited in densely populated areas following the same logic as incendiary weapons. Further, one could introduce certain export restrictions on fully-automated LAWS to prevent proliferation to non-state actors and rogue states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the concept of friction in warfare as described by Carl von Clausewitz in his book "On War." It discusses how friction has persisted in conflicts throughout history and examines the impact of new technologies on the incidence of friction in twenty-first-century warfare. While technology has the potential to reduce friction caused by human limitations and uncertainty, it can also introduce new sources of uncertainty and unpredictability. The article emphasizes that friction will continue to be a part of warfare as long as humans are involved. The accompanying document is a list of references and citations related to Clausewitzian Friction and its relevance to modern warfare, including discussions on information technology, artificial intelligence, and autonomous weapon systems. [Extracted from the article]

This document provides an overview of the field of Artificial Life (ALife), which encompasses various subareas such as evolutionary robotics, swarm robotics, and cognitive robotics. ALife explores the possibility of creating artificial entities that exhibit life-like characteristics, whether in physical or virtual environments. The document also discusses the study of artificial ecosystems and societies, including the concepts of evolution, emergence, and collective behaviors. Additionally, it delves into the idea of open-ended evolution and the exploration of creativity and novelty generation. The article discusses the moral, ethical, and societal implications of artificial life (ALife) research. It highlights the need for interdisciplinary approaches and the incorporation of information theory in understanding biological processes. The article also explores the use of simulation models to study complex behaviors and the potential applications of ALife in various fields such as synthetic biology, generative design, and epidemiological modeling. The authors emphasize the importance of considering ethics and avoiding negative impacts on the environment and society. They suggest that ALife researchers should actively engage policymakers and establish policies for the responsible creation and management of artificial living systems. [Extracted from the article]

The lethal autonomous weapon systems -LAW- are cybernetic entities capable of selecting and attacking targets without direct human intervention, supported by Artificial Intelligence -AI-, as opposed to conventional weapons, which are controlled by human beings. The objective of this research is to externalise the legal incompatibility of LAWs with respect to the principles of precaution, proportionality and distinction inserted in International Humanitarian Law that have been configured only for human beings as well as to identify the evident moratorium to filter/optimise -as a new weapon- the current critical use of these systems, evidencing the lack of international criminal power that emerges normatively as a result of the indistinction of technological malice, and the need to configure impartiality in the veto power of the substantial decisions regarding peaceful or non-peaceful settlements of the UN Security Council, as a result of their contemporary legal unpredictability. The conclusions aver that a permanent jurisdiction and universal competence are indispensable for their applicability, which should be governed by a potential international instrument regulating the use of LAWs in correlation with the applicable customary norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lethal autonomous weapon systems present a prominent yet controversial military innovation. While previous studies have indicated that the deployment of "killer robots" would face considerable public opposition, our understanding of the elasticity of these attitudes, contingent on different factors, remains limited. In this article, we aim to explore the sensitivity of public attitudes to three specific factors: concerns about the accident-prone nature of the technology, concerns about responsibility attribution for adverse outcomes, and concerns about the inherently undignified nature of automated killing. Our survey experiment with a large sample of Americans reveals that public attitudes toward autonomous weapons are significantly contingent on beliefs about their error-proneness relative to human-operated systems. Additionally, we find limited evidence that individuals concerned about human dignity violations are more likely to oppose "killer robots." These findings hold significance for current policy debates about the international regulation of autonomous weapons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Frónesis is the property of Universidad del Zulia (Fronesis) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Justicia (0124-7441) is the property of Universidad Simon Bolivar and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article is a review of the book "New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI" by Frank Pasquale. The book argues that the debate on automation has been dominated by economists and AI experts, neglecting the perspectives of professionals in various fields. Pasquale advocates for empowering experts and ensuring that AI and robots serve the public interest. He proposes four new laws to achieve these goals, including transparency, accountability, and democratic oversight of AI systems. The book addresses the role of technology in society and the ethical implications of AI from a legal perspective. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the relationship between technology and war, with a focus on the skepticism surrounding the revolutionary impact of autonomous systems and drones in warfare. It also examines the factors that contributed to the Azerbaijani army's victory over Armenian forces in the Karabakh Wars, highlighting the importance of political, diplomatic, and military factors. Other topics covered include the role of alliance politics in the Bosnian conflict, the success of limited use of force in countering Somali piracy, and the divergent roles of the Tunisian and Egyptian militaries during the Arab Spring. The article concludes with a review of a book on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, challenging the belief that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States. [Extracted from the article]

The debate about lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) characterises them as future problems in need of pre-emptive regulation, for example, through codifying meaningful human control. But autonomous technologies are already part of weapons and have shaped how states think about human control. To understand this normative space, I proceed in two steps: first, I theorise how practices of designing, of training personnel for, and of operating weapon systems integrating autonomous technologies have shaped normativity/normality on human control at sites unseen. Second, I trace how this normativity/normality interacts with public deliberations at the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on LAWS by theorising potential dynamics of interaction. I find that the normativity/normality emerging from practices performed in relation to weapon systems integrating autonomous technologies assigns humans a reduced role in specific use of force decisions and understands this diminished decision-making capacity as 'appropriate' and 'normal'. In the public-deliberative process, stakeholders have interacted with this normativity by ignoring it, engaging in distancing or positively acknowledging it – rather than scrutinising it. These arguments move beyond prioritising public deliberation in norm research towards exploring practices performed at sites outside of the public eye as productive of normativity. I theorise this process via international practice theories, critical security studies and Science and Technology scholarship to draw out how practices shape normativity, presenting ideas of oughtness and justice, and normality, making something appear normal via collective, repeated performances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reflects on securitization efforts with respect to 'killer robots', known more impartially as autonomous weapons systems (AWS). Our contribution focuses, theoretically and empirically, on the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a transnational advocacy network vigorously pushing for a pre-emptive ban on AWS. Marking exactly a decade of its activity, there is still no international regime formally banning, or even purposefully regulating, AWS. Our objective is to understand why the Campaign has not been able to advance its disarmament agenda thus far, despite all the resources, means and support at its disposal. For achieving this objective, we challenge the popular assumption that strong stigmatization is the universally best strategy towards humanitarian disarmament. We investigate the consequences of two specifics present in AWS, which set them apart from processes and successes of the campaigns to ban anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions, and laser-blinding weapons: the complexity of AWS as a distinct weapons category, and the subsequent circumvention of its complexity through the utilization of pop-culture, namely science fiction imagery. We particularly focus on two mechanisms through which such distortion has occurred: hybridization and grafting. These provide the conceptual basis and heuristic tools to unpack the paradox of over-securitization: success in broadening the stakeholder base in relation to the first mechanism and deepening the sense of insecurity in relation to the second one does not necessarily lead to the achievement of the desired prohibitory norm. In conclusion, we ask whether it is not the time for a more epistemically-oriented expert debate with a less ambitious, lowest common denominator strategy as the preferred model of arms control for such a complex weapons category. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Autonomous weapons are systems that, once activated, can identify, select and engage targets by themselves. Scharre (2018. Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. New York: Norton) has given a definition of autonomy based on three dimensions: the automatized tasks, the relationship with the human user and the sophistication of the machine's decision-making process. Based on this definition of autonomy, this article provides an overview of systematic biases that may occur in each of these three dimensions. Before the deployment of autonomous systems in war it is important to know how various biases can affect the functioning of the machines and how these biases can be compensated for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2024 Bernard Brodie Prize is awarded annually by Contemporary Security Policy to the author(s) of an outstanding article published in the journal the previous year. The prize is named after Dr. Bernard Brodie, a renowned security analyst and author. The winner of the 2024 prize is Rebecca Strating for her article on maritime dispute resolution in the Indo-Pacific. The article was selected by a jury from a shortlist of other notable articles. The previous winners of the Bernard Brodie Prize are also listed. [Extracted from the article]

Rapid technological change is resulting in the development of ever increasingly capable autonomous weapon systems. As they become more sophisticated, the calls for developing restrictions on their use, up to and including their complete prohibition, are growing. Not unlike the call for restrictions on the sale and use of drones, most proposed restrictions are well-intentioned but are often ill-informed, with a high likelihood of degrading national security and putting additional lives at risk. Employed by experienced operators well-versed in the laws of armed conflict, autonomous weapons can advance the objectives of those who would prohibit their use. This essay takes an operational perspective to examine the role that autonomous weapon systems can play while complying with the laws of armed conflict. With responsible design and incorporation of applicable control measures, autonomous weapons will be able not just to comply but also to enhance the ethical use of force. This essay contends that efforts by the international community to use international legal means and/or institutions to over-regulate or even ban lethal autonomous weapons are counterproductive. It considers and describes the end-game results of the use of autonomous weapons in enhancing the application of both international law and human ethical values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has sparked a wide-ranging debate on their use and regulation. This article delves into the contrasting perspectives of optimism, pessimism, and realism surrounding LAWS. Optimists view LAWS as a revolution in military affairs, while pessimists raise concerns about their destabilizing effects and ethical implications. Realists advocate for regulated development and better understanding. This article examines the ongoing debate, the need for a common understanding of LAWS, and proposes options for regulation. It explores the technical and legal definitions of LAWS, analyzes arguments for and against regulation, and discusses potential pathways for addressing the challenges posed by LAWS. The article emphasizes the importance of international cooperation and highlights the risks of unregulated adoption of LAWS. By finding common ground and strengthening norms against unrestrained use, it aims to contribute to the development of laws and regulations that promote global peace and security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the increasingly recurrent use of technology in the pursuit of military actions. The first part focuses on the methodology of targeted killings from a dual point of view. Firstly, with the analysis of the deaths of Qassem Soleimani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, where we highlight the challenges posed by drone strikes in third States in the framework of jus ad bellum. Secondly, regarding the technology itself. We describe the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, carried out by an AI-powered weapon, leading us to reflect on the future of warfare and fully autonomous weapons systems. Finally, the second and last part examines the use of technology in cyberspace, emphasizing the obstacles it presents under the principle of distinction, inherent in the jus in bello regime. Overall, this analysis will depend on doctrinal methods, which allow ways of thinking about the international legal system. This specifically approach will be based on descriptive research questions that seek to describe the state of the art of the current legal framework in relation to specific situations. Hence, we conclude that the current legal framework needs to find a way to adapt when faced with a new warfare paradigm, without losing its essence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several trends show that the efforts to alter South Asian strategic landscape have increased, which primarily includes unprecedented proliferation of technology to India. This has exacerbated Pakistan's security dilemma and is a matter of significant concern for South Asian security environment. Militaries worldwide are preparing for a new warfare trend in emerging technologies that include artificial intelligence and machine learning-based autonomous weapon systems, robotics, hypersonic weapons, and quantum technologies. These technologies are expected to change the character of war besides affecting geopolitical competitions and rivalries. It is pertinent to analyse the impact of these new technologies on regional rivalries to identify and implement effective solutions, thus mitigating potential risks and preventing the occurrence of a catastrophe. As several states are developing AI-based Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, capable of targeting without human supervision, possible exploitation of these technologies by nuclear-armed states may increase the risk of war leading to more aggressive nuclear postures. Such a risk would be higher in South Asia as the ballistic missile flight time would be less than ten minutes, and conventional military interactions of rival states could occur near a long border. The integration of autonomy into conventional weapons and nuclear systems has the potential to undermine strategic stability and will be a quick recipe for accidents and miscalculations. This study explores the region's threat perceptions and analyses the potential use of LAWS and how it can impact nuclear deterrence and strategic stability of South Asia. This study hypothesizes that LAWS will lower the nuclear threshold in the region and undermine deterrence stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into various aspects of human life, from technology to social interactions. It raises important questions about the impact of AI on human agency and freedom, as well as its potential to develop consciousness and intellect. It emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of AI and its implications across multiple fields, including philosophy, sociology, and theology.

It is widely believed that AI is about to revolutionise military operations. Many scholars have claimed that AI-enabled lethal autonomous weapons, especially drone swarms, are about to take over the battlefield. This article assesses the merits of those claims in relation to urban operations. Examining the cases of the Joint Special Operations Command in Baghdad in 2004-08 and the IDF's Operation Guardian of the Walls in 2021, it argues that AI will primarily be for military intelligence and targeting, rather than lethal autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea that using "killer robots" in armed conflict is unacceptable because they are not human is at the heart of nearly every critique of autonomous weapons. Some of those critiques are deontological, such as the claim that the decision to use lethal force requires a combatant to suffer psychologically and risk sacrifice, which is impossible for machines. Other critiques are consequentialist, such as the claim that autonomous weapons will never be able to comply with international humanitarian law (IHL) because machines lack human understanding and the ability to feel compassion. This article challenges anthropocentric critiques of AWS. Such critiques, whether deontological or consequentialist, are uniformly based on a very specific concept of "the human" who goes to war: namely, someone who perceives the world accurately, understands rationally, is impervious to negative emotions, and reliably translates thought into action. That idealized individual, however, does not exist; decades of psychological research make clear that cognitive and social biases, negative emotions, and physiological limitations profoundly distort human decision-making--particularly when humans find themselves in dangerous and uncertain situations like combat. Given those flaws, and in light of rapid improvement in sensor and AI technology, it is only a matter of time until autonomous weapons are able to comply with IHL better than human soldiers ever have or ever will. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]