Publisher's Synopsis
[The] portrayal of robotic killing machines graces popular publications and underscores arguments made by numerous well-regarded and knowledgeable individuals and organizations against the development of autonomous weapon systems (AWS). But what exactly are these opponents of AWS, well, opposing? And on what grounds? A survey of the bountiful commentary on the subject suggests that proponents and opponents of furthering AWS development are often actually debating different points. They may, in other words, each be voicing legitimate issues for discussion but framing them imprecisely-or worse, inaccurately-preventing the effective comparison of positions and achievement of conceptual clarity, much less consensus, on the legal issues. This is where lawyers can shine, by applying the skills that formal education, training, and practice have left us particularly well equipped (ostensibly at least) to employ: spotting the true issues presented and analyzing them in a methodical, rational manner to support informed decision making. This is especially true if we hope to move beyond academic discussion and provide timely practical input on the regulation of AWS development. We should thus strive to accurately and precisely frame the problems, lay the necessary foundation to properly assess the issues, and identify the path forward for the various stakeholders.To that end, this paper will first explore common arguments against developing AWS and seek to identify the true underlying concerns. Once those have been clarified, a review of the technology at work inside an AWS will be conducted, which I suggest will allay many of the professed legal concerns. Deployment of AWS also raises a host of philosophical, ethical, technical, and other legal and non-legal issues that warrant healthy discourse but transcend the bounds of this paper, so I introduce them for consideration but save their discussion for a future endeavor. Similarly, while autonomy is certainly employed in numerous nonlethal capabilities and functions across the public and private sectors, many of which offer equally stimulating conversations of their own, the proverbial mile is walked one step at a time and I leave them for others to engage in depth. Ultimately, the legal arguments against AWS development fall short, exacerbated by imprecision in the arguments and lack of detailed understanding of how an AWS would function. Furthermore, not only does the current law pose no bar to further development, but extant circumstances present a compelling impetus to increase collaboration and pursue relevant research, which should spur us to accelerate resolution of the current misguided call for a ban.1. Introduction * 2. Questions in Reverse * 3. What Is Autonomy? I Know It When I See It * 4. There's an App for That * 5. Over the River, but Not Yet Out of the Woods * 6. Conclusion * 7. Abbreviations * 8. BibliographyThis compilation includes a reproduction of the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.
