Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 307–323

Robots of Just War: A Legal Perspective

Special Issue

Abstract

In order to present a hopefully comprehensive framework of what is the stake of the growing use of robot soldiers, the paper focuses on: (1) the different impact of robots on legal systems, e.g., contractual obligations and tort liability; (2) how robots affect crucial notions as causality, predictability and human culpability in criminal law and, finally, (3) specific hypotheses of robots employed in “just wars.” By using the traditional distinction between causes that make wars just (i.e., bellum iustum) and conduct admissible on the battlefield (i.e., ius belli), the aim is to clarify how advancement of military robotics technology is transforming a 2,000-year-old legal debate on the concept of “just war.” For the first time, legal systems will hold political authorities and military commissioners responsible for what an artificial soldier autonomously decides to do. The paper examines how the new scenario affects both principles of military conduct and notions of justice in resorting to war.

Keywords

Autonomous weapons Just war theory Laws of war Liability Military robotics technology Responsibility Rules of engagement 

References

  1. Alston, Ph. (2010). Report of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, 28 May 2010.Google Scholar
  2. Arkin, R. C. (2007). Governing lethal behaviour: embedding ethics in a hybrid deliberative/hybrid robot architecture, report GIT-GVU-07-11. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology’s GVU Center.Google Scholar
  3. Arkoudas, K., Bringsjord, S. and Bello, P. (2005). Towards ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic, AAAI Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics, AAAI Technical Report FS-05-06.Google Scholar
  4. Asaro, P. (2008). How just could a robot war be? Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 75, 50–64.Google Scholar
  5. Aylett, R., & Michaelson, G. (2009). Killer robots or friendly fridges: the social understanding of artificial intelligence, Proceedings of the Symposium “Killer Robots vs. Friendly Fridges”, The Social Understanding of Artificial Intelligence, The AISB 2009 Convention. Edinburgh, Scotland: Heriot-Watt University.Google Scholar
  6. Aylett, R. and Michaelson, G. (2011). Killer robots of friendly fridges, AI & Society (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Bekey, G. A. (2005). Autonomous robots: from biological inspiration to implementation and control. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bobbio, N. (1991). Una guerra giusta? Sul conflitto del Golfo. Venezia: Sul conflitto del Golfo.Google Scholar
  9. Bobbio, N. (1999). Teoria generale della politica. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  10. Canning, J. (2008). Weaponized unmanned systems: a transformational warfighting opportunity, government roles in making it happens, 2008 American Society of Naval Engineers’ (ASNE) Proceedings of Engineering the Total Ship (ETS) Symposium, September 23–25. VA: Falls Church.Google Scholar
  11. Canning, J., Riggs, G. W., Holland, O Th, & Blakelock, C. (2004). A concept for the operation of armed autonomous systems on the battlefield, Proceedings of Association for Unmanned Vehicle System International’s (AUVSI) Unmanned Systems North America, August 3–5. CA: Anaheim.Google Scholar
  12. Chopra S, and White L (2004). Artificial agents—personhood in law and philosophy, Proceedings of 16th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI 2004, IOS Press, 635–639.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, S. (2005). Future technologies, dystopic futures and the precautionary principle. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4), 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epstein, R. G. (1997). The case of the killer robot. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Floridi, L. (Ed.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster-Miller Inc. (2008). Products and service: TALON military robots, EOD, Swords, and Hazmat robots, retrieved on November 14th, 2010, at http://www.foster-miller.com/lemming.htm
  18. Friedman, B. (1986). Value-sensitive design. Interactions, 3(6), 17–23.Google Scholar
  19. Goldberg, K., Paulos, E., Canny, J., Donath, J., & Pauline, N. (1996). Legal tender, ACM SIGGRAPH 96 visual proceedings, August 4–9 (pp. 43–44). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K. A., & Wolf, M. J. (2008). The ethics of designing artificial agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  22. Hildebrandt, M. (2010). Criminal liability and ‘smart’ environments. Rutgers-Newark: Conference on the Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law.Google Scholar
  23. Himma, K. E. (2007). Artificial agency, consciousness, and the criteria for moral agency: what properties must an artificial agent have to be a moral agent? 2007 Ethicomp Proceedings, Global e-SCM Research Center & Meiji University, pp. 236–245.Google Scholar
  24. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. New York: Penguin (1982 edition).Google Scholar
  25. Karnow, C. E. A. (1996). Liability for distributed artificial intelligence. Berkeley Technology and Law Journal, 11, 147–183.Google Scholar
  26. Katz, A. (2008). Intelligent agents and internet commerce in ancient Rome, Society for Computers and Law, retrieved on August 15th, 2010. http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ho0
  27. Krishnan, A. (2009). Killer robots: legality and ethicality of autonomous weapons. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  28. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lin, P., Bekey, G., & Abney, K. (2007). Autonomous military robotics: risk, ethics, and design. Report for US Department of Navy, Office of Naval Research. San Luis Obispo: Ethics+Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University.Google Scholar
  30. McFarland, D. (2008). Guilty robots, happy dogs: the question of alien minds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. McLaren, B. (2006). Computational models of ethical reasoning: challenges, initial steps, and future directions, IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/August, pp. 29–37.Google Scholar
  32. Mitcham, C. (1995). Ethics into design. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolis (Eds.), Discovering design (pp. 173–179). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Moor, J. (1985). What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy, 16(4), 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moor, J. (2006). The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics, IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/August, pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
  35. Pagallo, U. (2009). Privacy e design. Informatica e diritto, 1, 123–134.Google Scholar
  36. Pagallo, U. (2010a). Robotrust and legal responsibility. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pagallo, U. (2010b). The human master with a modern slave? Some remarks on robotics, ethics and the law, 2010 Ethicomp Proceedings (pp. 397–404). Tarragona, Spain: Universitat Rovira I Virgili.Google Scholar
  38. Reynolds, C., & Ishikawa, M. (2007). Robotic thugs, 2007 Ethicomp Proceedings, Global e-SCM Research Center & Meiji University, pp. 487–492.Google Scholar
  39. Sharkey, N. (2007). Automated killers and the computing profession. Computer, 40, 122–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharkey, N. (2008a). Cassandra or false prophet of doom: AI robots and war, IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/August, pp. 14–17.Google Scholar
  41. Sharkey, N. (2008b). Grounds for discrimination: autonomous robot weapons. RUSI Defence Systems, 11(2), 86–89.Google Scholar
  42. Singer, P. (2009). Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  43. Solum, L. B. (1992). Legal personhood for artificial intelligence. North Carolina Law Review, 70, 1231–1287.Google Scholar
  44. Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stafford, N. (2007). Spy in the sky. Nature, 7130(445), 808.Google Scholar
  46. Sullins, J. P. (2011). Robotics: war and peace. Philosophy & Technology (in press).Google Scholar
  47. Teubner, G. (2007). Rights of non-humans? Electronic agents and animals as new actors in politics and law, Max Weber Lecture delivered at the European University Institute of Fiesole (Italy) on 17th January.Google Scholar
  48. Van den Hoven, J., & Lokhorst, G. J. (2002). Deontic logic and computer-supported ethics. Metaphilosophy, 33(3), 376–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Veruggio, G. (2007). Euron roboethics roadmap, Proceedings Euron Roboethics Atelier, February 27th–March 3rd. Italy: Genoa.Google Scholar
  50. Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2008). Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  52. Weckert, J., & Moor, J. (2004). Using the precautionary principle in nanotechnology policy making. Asia Pacific Nanotechnology Forum News Journal, 3(4), 12–14.Google Scholar
  53. Whitbeck, C. (1996). Ethics as design: doing justice to moral problems. The Hastings Center Report, 26(3), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wiegel, V. (2006), Building blocks for artificial moral agents, Proceedings Artificial Life XGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings: cibernetics and society. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations