Campaign to Stop Killer Robot

It is widely accepted that ‘responsibility’ has been ambiguous, having found exactly who is to blame for that, as fully autonomous weapons has emerged. In terms of the background why the nations have tried to develop fully autonomous weapons, like a killer robot, It is made because no one wants to take responsibility for the decision when they set targets and press button for missiles. That is to say, they shift the blame on the robot, which is problematic these days, because the robot can make mistakes and they are not sure whether it can distinguish citizens and the enemies or not.
Recently, at the first Convention on Conventional Weapons meeting of experts on lethal autonomous weapons systems held at the UN in Geneva on 13-16 May 2014. A substantial of countries pay attention to the relevance of international human rights law in their statements, including Croatia, Egypt, the Holy sees, Mexico, Sierra Leone, and South Africa. Also, Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic issued the 26-page report Shaking the foundations; The Human Rights Implications of Killer Robots in May. The reports finds that fully autonomous weapons could contravene fundamental human rights. That’s why…

>>They could be prone to killing people unlawfully because the weapons could not be programmed to handle every situation. According to roboticists, there is little prospect that fully autonomous weapon will ever possess human qualities, such as judgment, that facilitate compliance with the right to life in unforeseen situations.

 

>>They would also undermine human dignity, as inanimate machines could not understand or respect the value of life, yet they would have the power to determine when to take it away.

 

>>There may be less meaningful accountability for the actions of a fully autonomous weapon as there would be legal and practical obstacles to holding anyone – superior officer, programmer, or manufacturer – responsible for a robot’s actions. Both criminal and civil law are ill suited to the task.

Plus, in this meeting, some nations mentioned about the crisis of fully autonomous weapons like this…

  • Argentina said that it is concerned about the normalisation of conflict and an arms race that could be triggered by these weapons
  • Brazil stated that robots should not make lethal decisions.
  • Cuba supported the recommendation for a moratorium
  • Indonesia said that LARs had
  • Pakistan stated that a similar approach to that of blinding lasers – a pre-emptive ban treaty – is also needed in response to LARs as well
  • Morocco said that giving de facto the right to kill human beings to machines needs to be examined for human rights requirements
  • Mexico said that legal accountability is needed for LARs, and regulation is needed
  • Sierra Leone raised questions over accountability and responsibility and called for a moratorium
  • Switzerland said that in no circumstances should states delegate the use of lethal force

A case study of the accountability for fully autonomous weapons
**Campaign to Stop Killer Robot