Debating Proposals for a Possible International Convention on Robotic Weapons

Posted on 03 October 2012 by mbolton

In the last few years there have been increasing calls for a global regulatory framework to govern robotic weapons. Just yesterday, influential counter-terrorism correspondent Peter Bergen called for a treaty to manage and mitigate drone proliferation. Earlier this year, along with Thomas Nash and Richard Moyes of the advocacy group Article 36, I called for a complete ban on autonomous armed robots, saying “Decisions to kill and injure should not be made by machines and, even if at times it will be imperfect, the distinction between military and civilian is a determination for human beings to make.” More conservative commentators have also recognized the need for some normative framework for robotic weapons. In 2011, an interdisciplinary group of legal, security and defense intellectuals from Consortium on Emerging Technologies, Military Operations, and National Security (CETMONS), argued in a paper for the Columbia Science and Technology Review that:

Enough concern and information exists now to consider appropriate governance models in a timely and proactive manner; yet, the time to take action is short before the current window of opportunity to design a relevant governance or oversight system for LARs [Lethal Autonomous Robotics] closes.

The 2009 statement by International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC), which called for bans on autonomous weapons, the arming of robotic weapons with nuclear arms and the deployment of armed robots in space is probably one of the most developed proposals I have seen. As a member of ICRAC, I have endorsed this statement. However, I have been considering ways to flesh out the ICRAC proposal with further provisions building on the precedents of the landmine and cluster munition treaties, as well as the draft Arms Trade Treaty (currently still being negotiated) and the broader corpus of international humanitarian law governing conduct in war.

Yesterday, I published an article (for Global Policy’s online Comment & Opinion section) and a post on my blog outlining possible provisions for an International Convention on Robotic Weapons. I am a political scientist, not a lawyer or roboticist, so my purpose in doing this is to provoke discussion and dialogue, not to pin down precise language. Moreover, while I have used the ICRAC statement as a foundation, this is my own personal adaptation and expansion of it and so should not be interpreted as an institutional position of ICRAC. Following discussions since yesterday, I have consolidated my proposed provisions into a revised list:

A. Outright Bans on Robotic Weapons Incapable of Discriminating Between Combatants and Non-Combatants and/or that Cause Disproportionate Harm

  1. Prohibition of the development, deployment and use of armed autonomous unmanned systems that make decisions to kill without a ‘human-in-the-loop’;
  2. Prohibition of arming robotic, particularly ‘unmanned’, systems with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, blinding lasers, landmines, cluster munitions or other weapons prohibited by international humanitarian norms.

B. Restrictions on Deployment and Targeting to Ensure Discrimination and Proportionality and Limit Aggressive Deployment

  1. Limitations on the development, deployment and use of robotic systems to ensure discrimination and proportionality in targeting, prevent civilian casualties and limit psycho-social harm;
  2. Prohibition of robotic deployment of explosive violence in populated areas;
  3. Limitations on the range and weapons carried by remotely-operated ‘unmanned’ systems and on their deployment in postures threatening to other states;
  4. Regulation of the use of so-called ‘less-lethal’, ‘non-lethal’ or ‘pain’ weapons by robotic systems;
  5. Prohibition of the development, deployment and use of robot space weapons.

C. Restrictions on the Import, Export, Trade, Transshipment, Brokering and Transfer of Robotic Weapons

  1. Prohibition of the trade or transfer of robotic weapons, parts, components, related technologies and munitions, to countries and armed groups that commit serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law;
  2. Transparent reporting on the trade and transfer of robotic weapons.

D. International Cooperation in the Mitigation of the Harm Caused by Robotic Weapons

  1. International cooperation in the reconstruction of communities damaged by robotic weapons;
  2. Recognition of the rights of survivors of robotic weapon violence and international cooperation in the provision of victim assistance;
  3. National and international mechanisms for recording the casualties of robotic weapon violence;
  4. National reporting on treaty implementation;
  5. International cooperation on treaty implementation, including technical assistance.

Do you think a treaty is needed to govern drones and other robotic weapons? What would such a treaty cover? How would it be monitored and enforced? On reading my proposal, a friend asked me whether it makes more sense to focus on the banning and circumscribing the effects of weapons (indiscriminate and disproportionate harm) rather than types of weapons (like robotic weapons, landmines, cluster munitions, etc.). What do you think? 

Dr. Matthew Bolton, Department of Political Science, Pace University (Note that the views expressed here are the author’s alone and have not been endorsed by the International Committee for Robot Arms Control).

mbolton
Matthew Bolton, PhD, comes to Dyson College from the international humanitarian and development sector, where he has worked with several non-profits and UNICEF in over a dozen countries, including Bosnia, Iraq, Kenya and Uganda. Dr. Bolton joined the New York faculty in the Political Science department in January and is teaching classes in international relations. He will also take over as Model United Nations advisor in the fall. He brings first-hand experience to the classroom. Before joining Pace University, most recently he was the emergency coordinator and acting chief of mission for Outreach International’s educational program in Haiti, where he oversaw the response to the 2010 earthquake and the expansion of the program’s annual funding tenfold. Dr. Bolton’s PhD thesis, from the London School of Economics and Political Science, explored the politics behind the allocation and implementation of foreign aid for the clearance of landmines by the U.S. and Norway for demining in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan. His research, rooted in ethnographic fieldwork, focuses on global public and private provision of security and social services in conflicted countries. He has a Master’s in Development Studies, also from the LSE, and a BA(Hons) majoring in history and religion from Graceland University in Lamoni, IA. Dr. Bolton has written two books: Foreign Aid and Landmine Clearance: Governance, Politics and Security in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan (published by I.B. Tauris) and Apostle of the Poor: The Life and Work of Missionary and Humanitarian Charles D. Neff (published by John Whitmer Books). He writes a weekly column on international and social issues for The Examiner (Independence, MO) and has published in a variety of media outlets, including The Guardian, Jane’s Foreign Report, Global Journalist and Transitions Abroad. He recently published a research paper on governance of the international aid effort in Haiti, “Human Security After Collapse: Global Security in Post-Earthquake Haiti”.

Comments are closed.