Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 119International Law and Human RightsMilitary Strategy and TechnologyWar, Ethics, and Justification

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Law and Ethics for Autonomous Weapon Systems: Why a Ban Won't Work and How the Laws of War Can

Open access
Anderson, Kenneth, Waxman, Matthew C.·2013·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.2250126
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Public debate is heating up over the future development of autonomous weapon systems. Some concerned critics portray that future, often invoking science-fiction imagery, as a plain choice between a world in which those systems are banned outright and a world of legal void and ethical collapse on the battlefield. Yet an outright ban on autonomous weapon systems, even if it could be made effective, trades whatever risks autonomous weapon systems might pose in war for the real, if less visible, risk of failing to develop forms of automation that might make the use of force more precise and less harmful for civilians caught near it. Grounded in a more realistic assessment of technology — acknowledging what is known and what is yet unknown — as well as the interests of the many international and domestic actors involved, this paper outlines a practical alternative: the gradual evolution of codes of conduct based on traditional legal and ethical principles governing weapons and warfare. This essay revises and significantly extends an earlier, short Policy Review article by Anderson & Waxman from 2012, also posted to SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2046375, "Law and Ethics for Robot Soldiers."

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.2250126

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 2012, For a dissenting view, that removing humans from military targeting is unlikely for the foreseeable future, see werner J.A. dahm, Wall Street Journal
  2. 2009, Air Force strategy document on the future evolution and use of drones-"remotely-piloted vehicles" or "unmanned aerial vehicles" (uAVs) in more technical language. See "united States Air Force unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan, 16
  3. Gary E See, 2011, For a survey of possible modes of international governance of lethal autonomous robotics, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 12
  4. Markus Wagner, 2011, taking Humans out of the loop: implications for international Humanitarian law, Journal of Law, Information and Science, 21, 10.5778/jlis.2011.21.wagner.1 · DOI
  5. Shane See, 2012, out of the loop: the Human-free Future of unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Emerging Threats in National Security and Law essay series
  6. Spencer Ackerman, 2012, Almost 1 in 3 u.S. warplanes is a robot
  7. Micah Zenko, 2013, 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-0151-2014022 · DOI
  8. we are not including here, for example, weapons that can be pre-programmed toward specific geographic coordinates, such as a cruise missile or its updated uAV cousins
  9. 2006, 15 this amounts to the famous "oodA loop" by any other name. oodA refers to the techno-strategic concept first developed by fighter pilot and strategist John Boyd-"observe, orient, decide, and act, Aerial warfare: Flight of the drones: why the future of air power belongs to unmanned systems
  10. Sonia K Marra, 2012, Boyd's insight was that . . . the advantage lay with the fighter pilot whose oodA loop was faster and more accurate than his opponent's, and who was able to throw his opponent's loop out of sync, lawfare research Paper Series, 1
  11. Singer, Wired for War
  12. Mcneil Marra, Automation and Autonomy in Advanced Machines, 15
  13. 2013, National Journal, 10.1021/cen-09022-ad13 · DOI
  14. . K, 2011, Joint doctrine Note 2/11: the u.K. Approach to unmanned Aircraft Systems, developments, concepts and doctrine
  15. E G See, department of defense directive, enclosure 2 at (a), providing that systems will go through rigorous testing including "analysis of unanticipated emergent behavior resulting from the effects of complex operational environments on autonomous or semi-autonomous systems
  16. 2011, Air Force directive on procedures to be followed for review of the legality of weapon systems and cyber capabilities, see order of the Secretary of the Air Force, "legal reviews of weapons and cyber capabilities
  17. Personal interviews with authors
  18. Jeffrey S See, 2013, the law that Applies to Autonomous weapon Systems, ASil insights, 17
  19. Michael N Schmitt, 2013, Autonomous weapon Systems and international Humanitarian law: A reply to the critics, Harvard National Security Journal, 10.2139/ssrn.2184826 · DOI
  20. Alan Backstrom, 2013, New capabilities in warfare: An overview of contemporary technological developments and the Associated legal and engineering issues in Article 36 weapons reviews, International Review of the Red Cross, 10.1017/s1816383112000707 · DOI
  21. 1977, the customary formulation as found, for example, Additional Protocol i, Art, 51
  22. 2007, For a general discussion, see also ronald c. Arkin, Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots, Perhaps the most ambitious of these efforts is by roboticist ronald c. Arkin, who describes his work on both distinction and proportionality in his, 43
  23. E G See, 2009, Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong
  24. Armin Krishnan, 2009, Killer Robots: Legality and Ethicality of Autonomous Weapons, 10.4324/9781315591070 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Markus Wagner, 2013, Autonomy in the Battlespace: independently operating weapon Systems and the law of Armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War, 10.1163/9789004229495_006 · DOI
  26. M Peter, 2009, Asaro directly addresses Arkin's modeling assumptions about moral machines), IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20
  27. which notes that some "question whether artificial intelligence, which always seems just a few years away, will ever work well enough . . . [a]nd decisions about what is proportionate often require fine distinctions and sophisticated judgment . . . there will be an almost infinite combination of contingencies facing drones
  28. E G See, 2009, March of the Killer robots, London Telegraph
  29. Noel Sharkey, 2011, the Automation and Proliferation of Military drones and the Protection of civilians, Law, Innovation and Technology, 3, 236, 10.5235/175799611798204914 · DOI
  30. Robert Sparrow, 2009, Building a Better warBot: ethical issues in the design of unmanned Systems for Military Applications, Science and Engineering Ethics, 15
  31. E G See, 2012, Action and Autonomy: A Hidden dilemma in Artificial Autonomous Systems, Robo-and Informationethics: Some Fundamentals (lit Verlag
  32. Richard Thomas Nash, 2012, A direct moral case against autonomous weapons as such is made in Matthew Bolton, Article36.org
  33. E G See, 2013, terminating the terminator: what to do About Autonomous weapons, Science Progress
  34. See W, 2012, New drone Has No Pilot Anywhere, So who's Accountable?, Los Angeles Times
  35. Mary L See, 2004, Automation and Accountability in decision Support System interface design, Journal of Technology Studies, 32, 28
  36. See Sparrow, Building a Better warBot, 178
  37. looking farther ahead, there are fears that uAVs and other roboticised killing machines will so lower the political threshold for fighting that an essential element of restraint will be removed. robert e. lee said 'it is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow too fond of it.' drones might make leaders fonder of war, Economist
  38. Singer, Wired for War, 431
  39. Paul W Kahn, 2002, Some of these issues are considered in relation to walzer's account of just war theory by Peter M. Asaro, Current Issues in Computing and Philosophy, 22
  40. Kenneth Anderson, 2012, Making the use of Force too easy?, Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, 374, 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0015 · DOI
  41. E G See, 2011, coming Soon: the New drones Arms race, 10.3886/icpsr02667 · DOI
  42. Sparrow discusses this "dual-use" challenge for international regulation of military robotics
  43. 2009, co.uk. their campaign is described in Nic Fleming, "campaign Asks for international treaty to limit war robots, New Scientist
  44. U K For, 1977, this article explicitly argues that autonomous lethal weapons are morally the equivalent of an indiscriminate antipersonnel landmine and should be banned on the same logic. See also J�rgen Altmann, Ethics and Robots, 36, 69
  45. Hoover institution Press assumes no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is
  46. Matthew C, 2012, Human rights watch and the international Human rights clinic at Harvard law School, 46
  47. losing Humanity, at 30. it goes on to reinforce the inference that these weapons, as a category, are already illegal under existing law, adding that fully autonomous weapons "would be unable to follow the rules of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity and might contravene the Martens clause
  48. 1996, For example, the success of the NGo campaign led by Human rights watch and the international committee of the red cross to ban blinding laser weapons-which finally resulted in the addition to the convention on chemical weapons of Protocol iV (entry into force 1998; u.S. ratification 2009)-depended in considerable part on the resistance of u.S. military officers to blinding lasers as a weapon of war. See Ann Peters, Blinding laser weapons: New limits on the technology of warfare, 18
  49. Gregory S Mcneal, 2012, Are targeted Killings unlawful? A case Study in empirical claims without empirical evidence, Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, 327, 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0013 · DOI
  50. See, 2004, department of defense Press release, cluster Munitions Policy released, releaseid=12049; u.S. department of State, landmine Policy white Paper

Cited by

  • The Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelines

    Hagendorff, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425 · Cited by 1,907

    “reas (Pistono and Yampolskiy 2016; Amodei et al. 2017). Leading, of course, is the military use of AI in cyber warfare or regarding weaponized unmanned vehicles or drones (Ernest and Carroll 2016; K. Anderson and Waxman 2013). According to media reports, the US government alone intends to invest two billion dollars in…”
    Background

  • The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines

    Hagendorff, T. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 · Cited by 1,911

    “reas (Pistono and Yampolskiy 2016; Amodei et al. 2017). Leading, of course, is the military use of AI in cyber warfare or regarding weaponized unmanned vehicles or drones (Ernest and Carroll 2016; K. Anderson and Waxman 2013). According to media reports, the US government alone intends to invest two billion dollars in…”
    Background

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, K., & Waxman, M. C.
Affiliations
  • American University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Waxman, Matthew C.
ORCID
Anderson, Kenneth
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.2250126
OpenAlex
W1575390301
Cited by
119
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
  • eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Military Strategy and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › War, Ethics, and Justification
Keywords
autonomous weapons, international humanitarian law, ethics of war, codes of conduct, military robotics, civilian harm, use of force

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.