• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Future Issues And Technology (FIT)
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Cohesive Societies
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • COVID-19 Resources
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Future Issues And Technology (FIT)
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Cohesive Societies
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • COVID-19 Resources
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • Lethal Autonomous Weapons: No Law for LAWS?
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO21122 | Lethal Autonomous Weapons: No Law for LAWS?
    Kelvin Wong

    12 August 2021

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    SYNOPSIS

    Representatives from 50 countries have gathered in Geneva to resume discussions on the challenges posed by lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS). Earlier discussions have yielded little in terms of a commitment to regulate LAWS. An outright ban desired by international rights groups and some countries is unlikely to materialise.


    Source: Pixabay

    COMMENTARY

    ON 2 AUGUST 2021, the international Human Rights Watch (HRW) launched a renewed effort to urge governments to negotiate a treaty that sets binding regulations – or even an outright ban – on the use of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS).

    The NGO released a 17-page report, entitled “Areas of Alignment: Common Visions for a Killer Robots Treaty”. It describes how dozens of countries have stated their objections to “delegating life-and-death decisions to machines” during the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) last held in September 2020. The report also came a day before representatives from 50 countries were expected to consider the matter in Geneva following the months-long hiatus.

    Military Utility of LAWS

    Many military systems and weapons in use today are already semi-autonomous in nature because they rely on autonomy for certain parts of their system; but they retain a physical or communications link to a human operator who will make the ultimate decision on any action.

    One example would be integrated air defence systems that can automatically identify, track, and calculate optimal responses to multiple incoming threats. Another example: unmanned vehicles that are able to self-navigate and execute a range of actions using pre-determined directives set by an operator.

    In both instances, the command to employ lethal force – such as launching a surface-to-air missile or an unmanned aircraft’s onboard weapons – firmly remain under the sole province of human control.

    In contrast, autonomous weapon systems can identify, select and engage a target with lethal force without an operator’s intervention, would independently respond to a dynamic environment, and determine the optimal course of action to achieve its pre-programmed goals.

    Advantages of LAWS

    As autonomous weapons do not require constant interaction with one or more human operators these systems would offer military forces several advantages.

    These include reduced cognitive load on personnel and much shorter sensor-to-shooter cycles, and even immunity to traditional countermeasures such as jamming. It could also mean that large numbers of these weapons can be deployed simultaneously; this is because human operators with their limited cognitive capacities are no longer needed to direct them.

    Indeed, notwithstanding the ongoing debate and growing alarm over LAWS, military forces across the world have demonstrated a growing interest in procuring unmanned aerial, ground, and maritime vehicles that are often highly automated and capable of carrying weapons.

    While these unmanned vehicles remain largely in human control, there are serious concerns that the line between present-day platforms and LAWS will become blurred over time as military forces continue to seek and field increasingly advanced systems.

    Moreover, the emerging breed of unmanned combat systems being developed to fight alongside or replace crewed platforms across the air, land, and maritime domains in future battlefields will necessarily feature high levels of autonomy not only to be able to operate in spectrum-contested environments but also to independently assess and react to fluid situations during battle.

    Paradigm Shift Into the Unknown?

    The proliferation of such weapon systems could result in a paradigm shift in the conduct of military operations.

    Some observers believe that LAWS present an opportunity to make combat more humane by reducing the number of civilian and military casualties on the battlefield. Others are concerned about unintended escalation and potential global instability, as well as the risks of having such potentially deadly weapons fall into the hands of non-state actors.

    Among the main concerns of international watchdogs and countries demanding tight control or a total ban on LAWS is that the use of such systems is incompatible with international humanitarian law. There are to be observed fundamental rules of distinction and proportionality; human qualities that serve as checks and balances; and compel most actors to apply force only in the most limited range of situations.

    Another pressing concern about the use of autonomous weapons is how little data or understanding that we currently possess about such systems. For example, the AI that underpin autonomous weapons must be trained, tested, and validated to ensure that they function as expected.

    But such efforts are presently carried out within controlled environments such as laboratories and are hardly representative of rapidly changing and often highly ambiguous real-world environments. Without such rigorous testing, the risk of unintended and disastrous results are very real possibilities.

    Moreover, while individual operators and military commanders can be held responsible for breaching international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, it would be legally challenging and morally questionable to bring charges against such individuals for the unintended or unforeseeable actions of an autonomous weapon system.

    Most of these groups believe that an unambiguous and total ban on LAWS is necessary as opposed to current approaches that essentially centre on attempts to implement a set of guiding principles and best practices, or worse, non-binding political declarations.

    Banning LAWS: An Unlikely Prospect?

    According to HRW, there are presently 31 countries calling for a ban on LAWS: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, the Holy See, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, the State of Palestine, Uganda, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

    The outlier is China, which surprisingly called upon other governments in April 2018 “to negotiate and conclude a succinct protocol to ban the use of fully autonomous weapons systems”. China was the first permanent member of the UN Security Council and the 26th country to call for a ban on LAWS. However, it appears that Beijing’s stated intent has little substance given that its military apparatus continues to engage in the development of such systems today.

    Despite a growing pool of international voices supporting this motion, it is clear that prospects for a legally binding instrument on LAWS remain dim for the foreseeable future for several reasons.

    First, CCW discussions on the matter have remained largely impotent thus far because of excessive consensus building that slows the process, often resulting in lowest-common-denominator decisions.

    Second, it is also clear that most countries supporting a ban on LAWS are typically unable to pursue indigenous development of these systems while countries that possess the financial and technical wherewithal to do otherwise remain opposed to such limitations.

    For instance, leading military powers such as Russia and the United States have consistently rejected proposals for a treaty, calling such moves “premature”.

    About the Author

    Kelvin Wong is a lead technology analyst and editor with defence intelligence provider Janes, specialising in unmanned systems and emerging military technologies. He was formerly with the Military Studies Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. The views expressed are his own.

    Categories: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / International Political Economy / East Asia and Asia Pacific / Global / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN

    Last updated on 12/08/2021

    comments powered by Disqus
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    SYNOPSIS

    Representatives from 50 countries have gathered in Geneva to resume discussions on the challenges posed by lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS). Earlier discussions have yielded little in terms of a commitment to regulate LAWS. An outright ban desired by international rights groups and some countries is unlikely to materialise.


    Source: Pixabay

    COMMENTARY

    ON 2 AUGUST 2021, the international Human Rights Watch (HRW) launched a renewed effort to urge governments to negotiate a treaty that sets binding regulations – or even an outright ban – on the use of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS).

    The NGO released a 17-page report, entitled “Areas of Alignment: Common Visions for a Killer Robots Treaty”. It describes how dozens of countries have stated their objections to “delegating life-and-death decisions to machines” during the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) last held in September 2020. The report also came a day before representatives from 50 countries were expected to consider the matter in Geneva following the months-long hiatus.

    Military Utility of LAWS

    Many military systems and weapons in use today are already semi-autonomous in nature because they rely on autonomy for certain parts of their system; but they retain a physical or communications link to a human operator who will make the ultimate decision on any action.

    One example would be integrated air defence systems that can automatically identify, track, and calculate optimal responses to multiple incoming threats. Another example: unmanned vehicles that are able to self-navigate and execute a range of actions using pre-determined directives set by an operator.

    In both instances, the command to employ lethal force – such as launching a surface-to-air missile or an unmanned aircraft’s onboard weapons – firmly remain under the sole province of human control.

    In contrast, autonomous weapon systems can identify, select and engage a target with lethal force without an operator’s intervention, would independently respond to a dynamic environment, and determine the optimal course of action to achieve its pre-programmed goals.

    Advantages of LAWS

    As autonomous weapons do not require constant interaction with one or more human operators these systems would offer military forces several advantages.

    These include reduced cognitive load on personnel and much shorter sensor-to-shooter cycles, and even immunity to traditional countermeasures such as jamming. It could also mean that large numbers of these weapons can be deployed simultaneously; this is because human operators with their limited cognitive capacities are no longer needed to direct them.

    Indeed, notwithstanding the ongoing debate and growing alarm over LAWS, military forces across the world have demonstrated a growing interest in procuring unmanned aerial, ground, and maritime vehicles that are often highly automated and capable of carrying weapons.

    While these unmanned vehicles remain largely in human control, there are serious concerns that the line between present-day platforms and LAWS will become blurred over time as military forces continue to seek and field increasingly advanced systems.

    Moreover, the emerging breed of unmanned combat systems being developed to fight alongside or replace crewed platforms across the air, land, and maritime domains in future battlefields will necessarily feature high levels of autonomy not only to be able to operate in spectrum-contested environments but also to independently assess and react to fluid situations during battle.

    Paradigm Shift Into the Unknown?

    The proliferation of such weapon systems could result in a paradigm shift in the conduct of military operations.

    Some observers believe that LAWS present an opportunity to make combat more humane by reducing the number of civilian and military casualties on the battlefield. Others are concerned about unintended escalation and potential global instability, as well as the risks of having such potentially deadly weapons fall into the hands of non-state actors.

    Among the main concerns of international watchdogs and countries demanding tight control or a total ban on LAWS is that the use of such systems is incompatible with international humanitarian law. There are to be observed fundamental rules of distinction and proportionality; human qualities that serve as checks and balances; and compel most actors to apply force only in the most limited range of situations.

    Another pressing concern about the use of autonomous weapons is how little data or understanding that we currently possess about such systems. For example, the AI that underpin autonomous weapons must be trained, tested, and validated to ensure that they function as expected.

    But such efforts are presently carried out within controlled environments such as laboratories and are hardly representative of rapidly changing and often highly ambiguous real-world environments. Without such rigorous testing, the risk of unintended and disastrous results are very real possibilities.

    Moreover, while individual operators and military commanders can be held responsible for breaching international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, it would be legally challenging and morally questionable to bring charges against such individuals for the unintended or unforeseeable actions of an autonomous weapon system.

    Most of these groups believe that an unambiguous and total ban on LAWS is necessary as opposed to current approaches that essentially centre on attempts to implement a set of guiding principles and best practices, or worse, non-binding political declarations.

    Banning LAWS: An Unlikely Prospect?

    According to HRW, there are presently 31 countries calling for a ban on LAWS: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, the Holy See, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, the State of Palestine, Uganda, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

    The outlier is China, which surprisingly called upon other governments in April 2018 “to negotiate and conclude a succinct protocol to ban the use of fully autonomous weapons systems”. China was the first permanent member of the UN Security Council and the 26th country to call for a ban on LAWS. However, it appears that Beijing’s stated intent has little substance given that its military apparatus continues to engage in the development of such systems today.

    Despite a growing pool of international voices supporting this motion, it is clear that prospects for a legally binding instrument on LAWS remain dim for the foreseeable future for several reasons.

    First, CCW discussions on the matter have remained largely impotent thus far because of excessive consensus building that slows the process, often resulting in lowest-common-denominator decisions.

    Second, it is also clear that most countries supporting a ban on LAWS are typically unable to pursue indigenous development of these systems while countries that possess the financial and technical wherewithal to do otherwise remain opposed to such limitations.

    For instance, leading military powers such as Russia and the United States have consistently rejected proposals for a treaty, calling such moves “premature”.

    About the Author

    Kelvin Wong is a lead technology analyst and editor with defence intelligence provider Janes, specialising in unmanned systems and emerging military technologies. He was formerly with the Military Studies Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. The views expressed are his own.

    Categories: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / International Political Economy

    Last updated on 12/08/2021

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    Lethal Autonomous Weapons: No Law for LAWS?

    SYNOPSIS

    Representatives from 50 countries have gathered in Geneva to resume discussions on the challenges posed by lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS). Earlie ...
    more info