The Case against Killer Robots
With the rapid development and proliferation of robotic
weapons, machines are starting to take the place of humans on the battlefield.
Some military and robotics experts have predicted that “killer
robots”—fully autonomous weapons that could select and engage
targets without human intervention—could be developed within 20 to 30
years. At present, military officials generally say that humans will retain
some level of supervision over decisions to use lethal force, but their
statements often leave open the possibility that robots could one day have the
ability to make such choices on their own power. Human Rights Watch and Harvard
Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) believe that such revolutionary
weapons would not be consistent with international humanitarian law and would
increase the risk of death or injury to civilians during armed conflict. A
preemptive prohibition on their development and use is needed.
A relatively small community of specialists has hotly
debated the benefits and dangers of fully autonomous weapons. Military
personnel, scientists, ethicists, philosophers, and lawyers have contributed to
the discussion.
They have evaluated autonomous weapons from a range of
perspectives, including military utility, cost, politics, and the ethics of
delegating life-and-death decisions to a machine. According to Philip Alston,
then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
however, “the rapid growth of these technologies, especially those with
lethal capacities and those with decreased levels of human control, raise
serious concerns that have been almost entirely unexamined by human rights or
humanitarian actors.”[1]
It is time for the broader public to consider the potential advantages and threats
of fully autonomous weapons.
The primary concern of Human Rights Watch and IHRC is the
impact fully autonomous weapons would have on the protection of civilians
during times of war. This report analyzes whether the technology would comply
with international humanitarian law and preserve other checks on the killing of
civilians. It finds that fully autonomous weapons would not only be unable to
meet legal standards but would also undermine essential non-legal safeguards for
civilians. Our research and analysis strongly conclude that fully autonomous
weapons should be banned and that governments should urgently pursue that end.
HERE
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten