Will Robots End War or Start It: The Ambiguous Horizon of New Laws of War

A future where humans disappear from the battlefield and only robots and enhanced humans clash is no longer the realm of science fiction. It is accelerating discussions on regulating lethal autonomous weapons systems at UN conference halls and the need for a fundamental redefinition of international humanitarian law. The replacement of combatants with robots is a double-edged sword, offering the tempting promise of reducing human casualties while simultaneously and dangerously lowering the threshold for initiating war.

Current Status: The Race for Regulation and Legal Gaps

The UN Conference in Geneva (CCW GGE) is struggling to establish international norms for lethal autonomous weapons systems. At the heart of the current discussions lies the 'dual-track approach.' Specifically, the goal is to establish a framework by 2026 that prohibits systems incapable of complying with international humanitarian law and strictly regulates other systems with autonomy. However, the final agreement on whether this will be a legally binding treaty or merely a political declaration remains uncertain.

The current international legal system fails to adequately encompass these technological advancements. According to the dominant legal view, AI robots are classified not as 'combatants' but simply as 'weapons.' Therefore, the rights and obligations of combatants under the Geneva Conventions do not apply, and responsibility for violations by the system is attributed to human commanders and operators. The so-called 'principle of command responsibility' is the only link. Discussions on granting limited legal personhood to AI are still in their early stages.

Analysis: The Evaporation of Responsibility and New Inequalities

This legal gap creates significant dilemmas. If robots become the primary actors in war, there is a risk of severing the chain of judgment and accountability. It is unclear how to trace the decision-making process of complex algorithms or clearly attribute the cause of malfunctions among developers, manufacturers, and operators. If the criteria for war judgment shift from human casualties to equipment loss rates, political risk calculations could fundamentally change. Would a war stop if 90% of equipment were destroyed? This scenario presents a redefinition of the traditional logic for ending wars based on human loss.

Meanwhile, the emergence of 'enhanced human soldiers' opens another dimension of ethical issues. DARPA is actively conducting research to enhance cognitive and physical abilities, including non-invasive brain-machine interfaces, accelerated neuroplasticity training, and physiological modulation through artificial red blood cells. While this research is conducted under strict ethical guidelines, if the technology is applied in actual combat, it could lead to new forms of inequality within militaries and across societies. The gap between enhanced and non-enhanced soldiers, and between nations with access to enhancement technology and those without, could create unpredictable geopolitical tensions.

Practical Application: Moving Towards a Forum for Discussion

There is no simple answer to this complex problem. However, a practical first step we can take is a shift in perception. Military technology should be viewed not as a purely 'tool' issue but as a matter of social contract that redefines human values and norms. A comprehensive dialogue involving civil society, technologists, legal scholars, and ethicists is urgently needed. In particular, there is a need for active participation in discussions on how to define the technical specifications of lethal autonomous weapons systems and how to ensure 'meaningful human control.'

FAQ

Q: Is there no possibility of a complete ban on lethal autonomous weapons systems? A: The dual-track approach currently under discussion at the UN includes a plan to ban specific types of lethal autonomous weapons systems (those incapable of complying with international humanitarian law). Therefore, the possibility of introducing at least partial prohibition clauses remains open.

Q: If an AI robot commits a war crime, who is punished? A: According to current international law, the AI robot itself cannot be subject to punishment. Responsibility is attributed to the commander who gave the order or the operator who activated the system. However, clear international legal precedent on how to hold manufacturers accountable for obvious design or software defects has not yet been established.

Q: Do enhanced humans already exist? A: Most of the research being conducted by organizations like DARPA is still in the experimental stage and is closer to assistive technologies that support or enhance cognitive and physical performance. Dramatically enhanced cyborg soldiers at the level depicted in movies have not been officially confirmed to exist. All research is conducted under strict ethical review.

Conclusion

The battlefield of the era of robots and enhanced humans poses questions about the nature of war and humanity itself, going beyond a simple replacement of weapon systems. Practical benefits like reducing human casualties coexist with ethical risks such as gaps in accountability and increased ease of provoking war. What we need is an active attitude to contemplate, together, new norms and legal frameworks that protect fundamental human values without being swept away by the pace of technological advancement. This is not just an issue for expert conference rooms but a shared task for all citizens who will live with the future of this technology.

Aionda

Will Robots End or Start Wars? The Future of Warfare Law