Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lethal Autonomous Weapons, Drones and Robots: To What Extent Their Usage Infringes Upon Established Principles of International Criminal Law?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

  • 173 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, Victor Tsilonis explores the complex interplay between technology, warfare, and international law, focusing particularly on lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS). These advanced weapons systems, growing increasingly prevalent, pose intricate challenges for international criminal law and humanitarian law, especially in attributing individual criminal responsibility. Tsilonis underscores a critical concern: the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks in addressing the distinctive implications of LAWS, leading to serious risks of impunity and diminished accountability.

In the debate surrounding LAWS, Tsilonis contends that while calls for an outright ban are well-intentioned, they may be unrealistic. Instead, he advocates for the establishment of comprehensive 'ground rules' to govern the use of LAWS and calls for the adaptation and evolution of legal frameworks to ensure robust individual accountability. To this end, Tsilonis proposes the introduction of Article 8 tris to the ICC Rome Statute: Liability for Crimes under the ICC Jurisdiction Committed Using Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWS).

This chapter provides a thought-provoking analysis of the formidable legal and ethical dilemmas presented by emerging military technologies. It is an essential read for anyone interested in the dynamic realm of modern warfare and the urgent need for international criminal law and international legal standards to adapt to rapid technological advancements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Seven (Initial) Drone Warfare Lessons from Ukraine”, Modern War Institute, 12 May 2022, https://mwi.usma.edu/seven-initial-drone-warfare-lessons-from-ukraine/, last accessed 8 June 2023.

  2. 2.

    “Ukraine sent dozens of ‘dronations’ to build army of drones”, BBC, 08 July 2022, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62048403, last accessed 8 June 2023. Also “Ukraine’s military in push to develop high-tech ‘Army of Drones’”, Al Jazeera, 15 July 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/15/ukraines-military-in-push-to-develop-high-tech-army-of-drones, last accessed 8 June 2023.

  3. 3.

    Also known as “autonomous weapon systems” (AWS).

  4. 4.

    Jus ad bellum refers to the norms applicable before engaging in war and relates to the conditions under which States may resort to the used of armed force against another State. Jus in bellum, in its turn, refers to the norms applicable during war and the conduct of parties during hostilities.

  5. 5.

    Chapter 3 for the exact definition and elements of the crime of genocide.

  6. 6.

    Chapter 4 for the exact definitions and elements of crimes against humanity.

  7. 7.

    Chapter 6 for the exact definition and elements of the crime of aggression.

  8. 8.

    Casey-Maslen (2018), p. 602.

  9. 9.

    Casey-Maslen (2018), p. 602. The author believes that there is “a strong argument” that this may be the case, referring to UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX) and the 1988 case of Israeli commandos killing a single Palestine Liberation Organization member was considered an aggression by the UNSC.

  10. 10.

    There could also be questions regarding who is entitled to give such consent and if the consent was valid (e.g. Yemen, Somalia). Heyns (2016), p. 797.

  11. 11.

    Heyns (2016), p. 79.

  12. 12.

    ICRC, IHL Database – Customary IHL, “Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants”, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule1, last accessed 08 June 2023.

  13. 13.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) 1996 ICJ Reports 1996, 226, p. 257.

  14. 14.

    Dinstein (2005).

  15. 15.

    ICRC, IHL Database – Customary IHL, “Rule 14. Proportionality in Attack” https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule14, last accessed 04 July 2022.

  16. 16.

    Art. 2(b)(i)-(iii),(iv)-(vI), ICCRSt.

  17. 17.

    van den Boogaard (2016), p. 12.

  18. 18.

    ICTY (2008) (confirming the Trial Chamber’s finding).

  19. 19.

    ICRC (2021), p. 7.

  20. 20.

    Idem.

  21. 21.

    ICRC (2021), p. 1.

  22. 22.

    Boyle (2013), p. 1, on the myth of drone effectiveness. Also Ogunfolu and Fagbemi (2015), pp. 106, 109 and 116–117.

  23. 23.

    Casey-Maslen (2018).

  24. 24.

    Also known as ‘CEP’, it is a measure of the precision of a weapon system. CEP refers to the radius of a circle (stemming from the target) where at least half of the missiles are expected to land.

  25. 25.

    Casey-Maslen (2018), pp. 221–222.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., pp. 222–223.

  27. 27.

    ICTY (2007).

  28. 28.

    van den Boogaard (2016).

  29. 29.

    The author makes reference to the concept of reasonableness used in the Galić Trial Judgement at the ICTY, where the Trial Chamber found that “in determining whether an attack was proportionate it is necessary to examine whether a reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian casualties to result from the attack”. ICTY (2003).

  30. 30.

    ICRC (2021), p. 1.

  31. 31.

    Cottier and Krivanek (2015), pp. 467–468.

  32. 32.

    ICCRSt. Article 25(1).

  33. 33.

    Art. 30 (1), ICCRSt: “Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge.”

  34. 34.

    HRW, IHRC (2015), p. 2.

  35. 35.

    Boulain et al. (2021), p. 45.

  36. 36.

    Idem.

  37. 37.

    ICC (2012); ICC (2007).

  38. 38.

    ICC (2012), para. 1006.

  39. 39.

    Casey-Maslen (2018), p. 244.

  40. 40.

    Idem.

  41. 41.

    HRW, IHRC (2015), p. 19.

  42. 42.

    Ambos (2015), p. 979. Also ICTY (1998).

  43. 43.

    Casey-Maslen (2018), p. 245.

  44. 44.

    Boulain et al. (2021), p. 48. See also Nordic Monitor (2022).

  45. 45.

    Casey-Maslen (2018), p. 231.

  46. 46.

    Boulain et al. (2021), p. 48.

  47. 47.

    HRW, IHRC (2015), p. 21.

  48. 48.

    HRW, IHRC (2015).

  49. 49.

    ICCRSt, Art. 30.

  50. 50.

    Chapter 5 and the discussion on recklessness.

  51. 51.

    ICCRSt, art. 22(2): “The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.”

  52. 52.

    HRW, IHRC (2015).

  53. 53.

    ICRC (2021), p. 7.

  54. 54.

    Trager (2022), last accessed 08 June 2023. Regarding the former exemple, the author argues that whether the autonomous mode of these systems was active is disputed.

  55. 55.

    HRW (2020), last accessed 08 June 2023.

  56. 56.

    Trager (2022), last accessed 08 June 2023.

  57. 57.

    Beaubien (2022), last accessed 08 June 2023; Stashevskyi and Bajak (2022), last accessed 08 June 2023.

  58. 58.

    Bozkurt (2022), last accessed 08 June 2023.

  59. 59.

    Koetsier (2021), last accessed 08 June 2023.

  60. 60.

    Geneva Internet Platform (2023).

  61. 61.

    Idem.

  62. 62.

    Asimov (2008), p. 38 (first edition: Gnome Press, 1950).

  63. 63.

    Nasu and Korpela (2022), last accessed 08 June 2023.

References

Table of Cases

  • ICC (2007) Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, , ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tem, para. 330

    Google Scholar 

  • ICC (2012) Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-284, paras 1003, 1005

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) ICJ Reports

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTY (1998) Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgement, IT-95-17/1-T, para. 236

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTY (2003) Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgement IT-98-29-T, para. 58

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTY (2007) Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Trial Judgment T-95-11-T, para. 463

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTY (2008) Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Appeals Judgment IT-95-11-A, para. 251

    Google Scholar 

Books

  • Ambos K (2015) Article 25. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. OUP, p 979

    Google Scholar 

  • Asimov I (2008) I ROBOT, 1st edn. Gnome Press, p 38

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulain V, Bruun L, Goussac N (2021) Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law: identifying limits and the required type and degree of human-machine interaction. SIPRI, p 45

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey-Maslen S (2018) Autonomous weapons systems and international criminal law. In: Casey-Maslen S, Homayoun Nejad M, Stauffer H, Weizmann N (eds) Drones and other unmanned weapons systems under international law. Brill | Nijhoff, Boston

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cottier M, Krivanek D (2015) In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. OUP, pp 467–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2005) Collateral damage and the principle of proportionality. In: Wippman D, Evangelista M (eds) New wars, new laws? Applying laws of war in 21st century conflicts. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

Articles/Papers

Websites/Web Sources

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Criminal Court Bar Association (ICCBA), The Hague, The Netherlands

    Victor Tsilonis

Authors
  1. Victor Tsilonis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tsilonis, V. (2024). Lethal Autonomous Weapons, Drones and Robots: To What Extent Their Usage Infringes Upon Established Principles of International Criminal Law?. In: The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46138-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46138-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46137-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-46138-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation