Jakarta, IO – Autonomous weapon systems (AWS), or killer robots that operate without human intervention, are no longer a figment of dystopian fiction but a pressing reality. Defined by the ICRC, AWS can independently search for, detect, identify, track, and attack targets, although their activation still requires human involvement. The concept of lethal autonomy in military weapons gained traction in the 20th century with advancements in artificial intelligence and autonomous functionalities.
Historically, AWS have been deployed in various conflicts. Notable examples include Germany’s use of the “Fritz X” guided bombs during World War II and the U.S.’s autonomous homing bombs, “Bat,” in the same period. The Vietnam War saw the deployment of laser-guided bombs by the U.S. Air Force. In more recent times, drones have become pivotal in the Global War on Terrorism across multiple countries. The Russo-Ukrainian War and the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War highlighted the significant impact of AWS, particularly with Azerbaijan’s use of Turkish and Israeli-made drones.
AWS have the potential to revolutionize warfare, making it more efficient, subtle, and cost-effective compared to traditional methods. This potential has driven states to invest heavily in AWS development to gain military superiority, potentially leading to a new arms race surpassing the severity of the Cold War nuclear arms race. Unlike nuclear technology, artificial intelligence has vast commercial applications, attracting interest from various industries and further fueling competition.
However, the rise of AWS raises profound security concerns. Although currently manageable by humans, rapid development could outpace human control, leading to reliance on AWS to counter other AWS. This scenario poses risks, such as the possibility of a “flash war,” where automated systems might misinterpret non-hostile actions as threats, leading to uncontrollable conflict. Such an event would be far more catastrophic than financial market “flash crashes,” as warfare cannot be easily halted.
Moral and ethical considerations also come into play with AWS. Entrusting life-or-death decisions to machines, which lack conscience and understanding of the value of life, undermines human dignity. In armed conflict, moral principles guide human decisions, balancing the justification for taking life with its gravity. AWS, devoid of such moral agency, cannot comprehend or respect the significance of life, raising concerns about their use in populated areas where distinguishing between combatants and civilians is challenging.
Accountability is another critical issue. AWS’s reliance on sensors and software for target selection and attack raises questions about their accuracy and the chain of responsibility in case of malfunctions or unintended civilian casualties. Current international humanitarian law (IHL) does not specifically regulate AWS, leaving gaps in accountability and legal obligations.
Read: How Would The New NATO Leader Manage Alliance Amidst The Ukrainian Conflict Or Trump’s Re-Election?
Efforts to regulate AWS at the international level have been slow and contentious. While some countries advocate for a ban on lethal AWS, major powers heavily invested in their development prefer maintaining the status quo. The UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) discussions on AWS began in 2014, but consensus remains elusive, with no legally binding framework expected until at least 2026.
Proponents of AWS argue that the risks are often exaggerated and highlight their potential benefits. AWS can enhance military power by acting as force multipliers, delivering precise attacks, reducing the need for human soldiers in dangerous missions, and minimizing collateral damage. They also argue that AWS can reduce psychological stress on soldiers, potentially lowering the incidence of war crimes and improving adherence to IHL by removing humans from highstress combat zones.
To address the challenges posed by AWS, a balanced approach is necessary. Rather than outright banning AWS, efforts should focus on creating legally binding regulations that ensure human oversight and control throughout their use. These regulations should define the permissible uses of AWS, ensure compliance with IHL, and establish clear accountability mechanisms. Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that all countries, especially those leading in AWS development, adhere to these regulations to mitigate the risks and harness the potential benefits responsibly.
Andi Faradilla Ayu Lestari is a Master’s student of International Relations at Gadjah Mada University, with an interest in international politics, security studies, and peace studies.