ARTICLE 36 WEAPONS REVIEWS & AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS: SUPPORTING AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW STANDARD

• Published in: American University international law review 2018-03, Vol.34 (2), p.465-495
• Main Author: Poitras, Ryan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Armed forces; Automation; Compliance; Ethics; International law; Military aircraft; Regulation; Weapons
• ISSN: 1520-460X

Because of its compliance with AP I's requirements, the U.S. weapons review process can regulate AWS effectively despite the fact that the U.S. is not a signatory to AP I, and can help create an effective international standard based on Article 36. According to Schuller, while developing and reviewing AWS, the relevant variables an AWS can expect to encounter in an uncertain environment should be catalogued.147 Once these variables have been determined, then the variables the AWS can be expected to observe that are also relevant to IHL must be defined.148 Last is a determination of which of the observable and IHL-relevant variables the AWS can encounter will be affected by the AWS AI system.149 From this evaluation a more limited set of variables can be identified that can be programmed to evaluate the probability of certain outcomes compared to the expected utility of particular actions.150 By ensuring that AWS operate in a manner that is foreseeable and controllable, a larger emphasis on software testing in the U.S. weapons review processes will increase the probability that its AWS are compliant with the prohibitions on unnecessary suffering, superfluous injury, and indiscriminate attacks, and thus increase the weapon review processes' consistency with the Article 36 standard. Because of expected growth in AWS technology in the future and the significant military benefits that such weapons will provide, it is likely that some countries will attempt to use AWS. See id. Besides limiting AWS use to only certain defensive situations, AWS use falling outside of such situations must be approved twice by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the same guidelines used in the typical AWS review process.