Total ban or limited use of “killer robots”, subject of debate in diplomatic forum on weapons

What rules to impose on the Autonomous Lethal Weapons Systems (SALA), also called “killer robots” by his adversaries? Total prohibition, respectful use of humanitarian law or unlimited use, such are the alternatives that 125 States are going to debate, in a forum that mixes high technology and ethics.

The question is difficult to address because, despite the fact that the cinema has fed the popular imagination with the Terminators, specialists do not agree on the definition of what an autonomous weapon is.

The debates are taking place this week in Geneva, in the framework of the review conference of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCAC), under the presidency of France.

The SALA issue has an echo in public opinion, concerned about the development of artificial intelligence, and its consequences.

The conference “must advance rapidly in its work on autonomous weapons, which can designate targets and kill people without human intervention,” UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a message to delegates.

Guterres asked “An ambitious plan for the future to set restrictions on the use of certain types of autonomous weapons”.

The “Stop Killer Robots” campaign, which brings together some 180 NGOs, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, has just supported dozens of countries that want a total ban on these weapons.

Chance

In Geneva, States have the opportunity to “set a red line against man-killing machines, the last form of digital dehumanization” underlines “Stop Killer Robots”.

The International Committee of the Red Cross – guardian of international humanitarian law promulgated in the Geneva Conventions – asks the States to agree on the limits to be imposed on autonomous weapons systems “to guarantee the protection of civilians, respect for international humanitarian law and the ethical acceptability of these systems “.

Although partially autonomous weapons already exist, truly autonomous systems on the battlefield, capable of fighting without human intervention, remain theoreticalaccording to most experts.

Consent

The problem – but also the strength – of the debates within this CCAC is that the convention works by consensus, the French ambassador, in charge of disarmament issues in Geneva, Yann Hwang, recently explained.

If an agreement is found within this framework, it “would encompass all the main military powers” and “when it is debated and negotiated we are sure that everyone accepts the obligations”, he emphasizes.

But at the moment it seems very difficult to get a consensus.

There are two groups of countries, “Those who consider that these weapons must be prohibited preventively”, “even their development for ethical reasons, and then countries like France that think that there are risks but that they can be controlled”, explains the French ambassador.

“For (…) many European countries the ethical perspective is legitimate but not sufficient to develop a regulation that controls weapons,” he adds.

One of the difficulties lies in the fact that the present technologies have a dual use, military and civil. On Friday it will be known if the States want to continue these debates or not. (I)