The United Nations General Assembly discussed the future of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) and deliberated on whether this new domain of warfare should enjoy a natural growth trajectory or be limited in its scope and effect. The UN Secretary General, António Guterres called them “politically unacceptable, and “morally repugnant”, expressing his deep regret at the indiscriminate development of such weapons. However, there is a collective ambiguity regarding the future of AI and Robotics in warfare.

The US, China, Russia, the UK, and India to name a few, oppose the imposition of any caps or limitations on LAWS. The EU’s response remains mixed where Germany and France support some degree of regulation while others are open to restrictions.

Pakistan proposes temporal, spatial, and target related limitations on the use of such weapons so as to minimize unwarranted escalation

Pakistan has maintained its strong opposition to fully autonomous lethal weapons that work in the “human-out-of-the-loop” design. It argues that the provisions of IHL remain incompatible with the design of the LAWS as they undermine basic principles of accountability and responsibility – both of which are the basic premises that the convention is based on. Regarding weapons that cannot be banned otherwise, Pakistan proposes temporal, spatial, and target related limitations on the use of such weapons so as to minimize unwarranted escalation.

Due to the problems of attribution, actors who employ LAWS may breach others’ sovereignty and catalyze escalation

The latter proposal by Pakistan stands in line with the legal issues pertaining to LAWS which advocate for appropriate distinction between combatants and civilians. In addition to that, the concept of proportionality, that determines actions such as self-defense, are threatened by the induction of LAWS – due to the inherent challenges to attribution in autonomous weapons, state actors may be tempted to not use these weapons proportionately. Another concern relates to the UN Charter itself that prohibits extra judicial killings and assassinations, especially of high-profile entities. Again, due to the problems of attribution, actors who employ LAWS may breach others’ sovereignty and catalyze escalation.

One may believe that the current debates on limiting or banning LAWS would not bear any substantial results to the betterment of humanity at large any time soon. For instance, nuclear weapons have a far greater potential for destruction, yet it took the major powers more than two decades to finalize a framework, known as the NPT, to limit the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons. Only after thousands of tests and after maturing the technology did the major nuclear powers agree to stop the expansion of their nuclear programs. This was inevitably rejected by many states which include Pakistan and India, who suspected that the NPT’s original motive was to make nuclear weapons exclusive rather than control the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation.

Skeptics of the NPT contend that universal application of limitations is necessary

Skeptics of the NPT contend that universal application of limitations is necessary. The NPT clearly disregards such claims recognizing the nuclear status of the P5, i.e. the US, Russia, China, France, and Britain, while simultaneously refusing to recognize the nuclear status of nations that became nuclear powers after 1 January 1967 – this is highlighted in the treaty’s article 9, para 3.

The disarmament efforts revolving around LAWS may be overridden by major powers’ national interest calculations. A trend seems to exist where countries that possess some degree of autonomous weapons capabilities do not want to lose their ‘hard-gained’ edge by relinquishing those weapons. On the other hand, nations that do not possess such weapons or have not developed them yet are lobbying for additional protocols in the IHL that will regulate and limit the use of these weapons, and in some cases have proposed an outright ban on fully autonomous weapons for reasons discussed above.

Another consideration is that states that often rely on aggressive foreign and defense policies will nonetheless benefit from employing LAWS, irrespective of their moral and ethical implications – in a realist world, morality is often given negligible priority any way.

In the uncertain global security environment, states will push to pursue these weapons more rigorously

It seems unlikely that a broad consensus on the future of LAWS will be reached in the short-run. In the uncertain global security environment, states will push to pursue these weapons more rigorously due to national interest, power projection aspirations, and aggressive defense calculations, lest they lose their competitive edge vis-à-vis their adversary.

From a liberal perspective, the current state of affairs can only be described as an unfortunate descent towards a state of devastation. For realists, the trend of LAWS induction is a matter of bolstering national security, maintaining the balance of power, establishing conventional deterrence, and attaining pride in technological advancement.

When it comes to warfare and weapons, actors typically disregard liberal concepts and adhere to realist ones

When it comes to warfare and weapons, actors typically disregard liberal concepts and adhere to realist ones. If that is indeed the case, prohibition of LAWS will remain highly unlikely unless a major catastrophe, borne out of unregulated use of LAWS, implies a shock significant enough to change the views of all parties involved.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.