Advertisement

Meaningful Human Control – and the Politics of International Law

  • Thilo MarauhnEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In the Geneva discussions on lethal autonomous weapons systems the concept of “meaningful human control” plays an important role. While the concept as such has served to focus on particular politico-ethical questions and to place the issue of lethal autonomous weapons systems prominently on the agenda of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), its legal value is questionable. This chapter highlights the importance of terminology—in law and in politics. It illustrates that terminology can serve different purposes in political and legal contexts when negotiating questions of international humanitarian law (and arms control). The chapter illustrates that the concept of “meaningful human control” does not add anything to existing standards of the law of armed conflict, perhaps even risks blurring them, but should in the first place be used for political purposes. Addressing time and place of decision-making, cognition and volition, as well as the relevance of value-based decision-making, the chapter concludes that the concept may, nevertheless, facilitate the implementation of existing law.

References

  1. Arendt R (2014) Der Einsatz autonomer Waffensysteme im Lichte des Verhältnismäßigkeits- und des Unterscheidungsgrundsatzes. In: Frau R (ed) Drohnen und das Recht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  2. Asaro P (2012) On banning autonomous weapon systems. ICRC Int Rev Red Cross 94:687–709Google Scholar
  3. Beard JM (2013/14) Autonomous weapons and human responsibilities. Georgetown J Int Law 45:617–681Google Scholar
  4. Boothby WH (2012) The law of targeting. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Boothby WH (2016) Weapons and the law of armed conflict. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Bothe M (2003) Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte und des humanitären Völkerrechts – ein Paradigmenwechsel? In: Marauhn T (ed) Die Rechtsstellung des Menschen im Völkerrecht. Entwicklungen und Perspektiven. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 115–130Google Scholar
  7. Chengeta T (2016) Defining the emerging notion of ‘Meaningful Human Control’ in autonomous weapon systems (AWS). Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2754995
  8. Crootof R (2016) A meaningful floor for “Meaningful Human Control”. Temple Int Comp Law J 30:53–62Google Scholar
  9. Elias RA (2016) Facing the Brave New World of Killer Robots. Indones J Int Comp Law 3:101–126Google Scholar
  10. Geiß R (2012) The principle of proportionality. ‘Force Protection’ as a military advantage. Israel Law Rev 45:71–89Google Scholar
  11. Gillard E-C (2016) Protection of civilians in the conduct of hostilities. In: Liivoja R, McCormack T (eds) Routledge handbook of the law of armed conflict. Routledge, London, pp 157–180Google Scholar
  12. Hailbronner K, Hellmann D (2009) Aerial incident Cases before international courts and tribunals. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Online Edition (www.mpepil.com)
  13. Hallevy G (2010a) The criminal liability of artificial intelligence entities – from science fiction to legal social control. Akron Intellect Prop J 4: 171–201Google Scholar
  14. Hallevy G (2010b) Virtual criminal responsibility. Orig Law Rev 6:6–27Google Scholar
  15. Horowitz MC, Scharre P (2015) Meaningful Human Control in Weapon Systems: A Primer, CNAS (Centre for a New American Security) Working Paper, available at https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/meaningful-human-control-in-weapon-systems-a-primer
  16. Neuman N (2006) Applying the rule of proportionality: force protection and cumulative assessment in international law and morality. Yearb Int Humanit Law 7.2004:79–112Google Scholar
  17. Noone GP, Noone DC (2015) The debate over autonomous weapons systems. Case West Reserve J Int Law 47:25–35Google Scholar
  18. Sassóli M (2014) Autonomous weapons and international humanitarian law: advantages, open technical questions and legal issues to be clarified. Int Law Stud 90:308–340Google Scholar
  19. Schmitt MN (2013) Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law: a reply to the critics. Harv National Secur J. Features 05 February 2013, 1–37. Available at http://harvardnsj.org/2013/02/autonomous-weapon-systems-and-international-humanitarian-law-a-reply-to-the-critics/
  20. Schmitt MN, Thurnher JS (2013) ‘Out of the loop’: autonomous weapon systems and the law of armed conflict. Harv Nat Secur J 4:231–281Google Scholar
  21. Schmitt MN, Widmar E (2016) The law of targeting. In: Ducheine PAL, Schmitt MN, Osinga F (eds) Targeting: the challenges of modern warfare. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 121–146Google Scholar
  22. Wagner M (2016) Autonomous weapon systems. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, online Edition (www.mpepil.com)
  23. Wexler L (2003) The international development of shame, second-best responses, and norm entrepreneurship – the campaign to ban landmines and the Landmine Ban Treaty. Ariz J Int Comp Law 20:561–606Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Law and International LawJustus Liebig University GießenGießenGermany

Personalised recommendations