Report on Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction and System Definition

An analysis of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) reveals significant challenges to international stability and humanitarian principles. AWS are defined as weapon systems which, once activated, can independently select and engage targets without further human intervention. The system’s action is triggered by environmental sensor data matched against a generalized “target profile,” meaning the human user does not choose or know the specific target, timing, or location of the force application. This functionality presents a direct challenge to the framework of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by creating ambiguity in accountability and control during armed conflict.

Analysis of Risks in Relation to Global Goals

Humanitarian, Legal, and Ethical Implications

The deployment of AWS introduces severe risks due to the inherent difficulty in anticipating and limiting their effects. The loss of human control and judgment in life-and-death decisions raises profound concerns that impact several Sustainable Development Goals.

• Threats to Peace and Well-being: AWS pose significant risks of harm to both civilians and combatants and create dangers of conflict escalation. This directly undermines SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by increasing potential casualties and threatens SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by endangering civilian populations and infrastructure.
• Challenges to Justice and Rule of Law: The systems raise complex challenges for compliance with international law, particularly International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This ambiguity weakens the rule of law at the international level, a core target of SDG 16.
• Erosion of Human Dignity: The delegation of lethal decisions to machines raises fundamental ethical concerns, diminishing the moral agency of users and the human dignity of those targeted. This contravenes the principles of justice and human rights that underpin SDG 16.

Compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

While the applicability of IHL to AWS has been affirmed by international bodies, significant legal uncertainty persists. The core principle remains that humans, not weapon systems, are responsible for fulfilling IHL obligations. However, the autonomous nature of AWS complicates the application of rules governing the conduct of hostilities. Without clear international standards, there is a substantial risk that technological advancements will erode established legal protections for those affected by armed conflict, thereby weakening the “strong institutions” promoted by SDG 16.

Recommendations for International Regulation

The Urgent Need for New Legally Binding Rules

Existing IHL rules do not sufficiently address the unique humanitarian, legal, and ethical questions raised by AWS. Differing interpretations among States regarding the limits imposed by current laws highlight the need for a new, robust legal framework. The establishment of new, legally binding rules is imperative to clarify how IHL applies to AWS and to address the wider risks they pose. This action is a critical step toward achieving the targets of SDG 16 by strengthening international governance and ensuring accountability.

A Proposed Framework for Action

To ensure the responsible development and use of AWS, the international community must collaborate to establish clear regulations. This effort aligns with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), requiring a multilateral approach to address a global security challenge. A new legal instrument should include the following elements:

1. Specific Prohibitions and Restrictions: The rules must clearly prohibit certain types of AWS and place strict restrictions on the design and use of others to ensure IHL compliance and uphold ethical standards.
2. Reinforcement of IHL Protections: The framework must safeguard existing IHL protections against being undermined by increasing autonomy in weapon systems, thereby ensuring that technological progress does not come at the cost of humanity.
3. Preservation of Human Control: The regulations must ensure that meaningful human control and moral agency are retained in all decisions to use lethal force, reinforcing the principles of justice and accountability central to SDG 16.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators related to Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS)

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is central to the article’s discussion. The text focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies by addressing the challenges posed by Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) in armed conflict. The ICRC’s concerns about the loss of human control, risks to civilians, conflict escalation, and the need for legal and ethical frameworks directly relate to building peace, ensuring justice through the rule of law (International Humanitarian Law), and strengthening international institutions and agreements to regulate warfare.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

   The article directly addresses this target by highlighting how AWS “pose risks of harm to those affected by armed conflict, both civilians and combatants, as well as dangers of conflict escalation.” The call to regulate and potentially prohibit certain types of AWS is a direct effort to mitigate violence and reduce death rates in conflict zones by ensuring human control and judgment in life-and-death decisions.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   This target is explicitly supported by the article’s repeated emphasis on International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The text states that AWS “raise challenges for compliance with international law, including IHL.” The ICRC’s call for “new legally binding rules” and the need to “clarify and specify how IHL applies to AWS” are direct actions aimed at strengthening the rule of law at the international level to govern the means and methods of warfare.

3. Target 16.4: By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime.

   While not about illicit flows, this target’s focus on controlling arms is relevant. The article’s advocacy for new international rules and its reference to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) contribute to the broader goal of regulating the international flow and use of advanced weaponry. Establishing clear prohibitions and restrictions on AWS is a crucial step in managing the global arms environment and preventing the proliferation of destabilizing technologies.

4. Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.

   The article underscores the importance of international cooperation and institutional frameworks. The mention of discussions among the “High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)” and “UNGA resolutions” demonstrates the role of international institutions in addressing the challenges of AWS. The call for new rules is an effort to strengthen this international institutional framework to prevent the specific form of violence associated with the misuse or uncontrolled use of autonomous weapons.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 16.1: Reduction in civilian and combatant casualties from AWS.

   The article implies this indicator by expressing deep concern over the “risks of harm to those affected by armed conflict, both civilians and combatants.” Progress would be measured by the successful prevention of such harm through the regulation or prohibition of these weapons, leading to fewer casualties attributable to autonomous systems.

2. Indicator for Target 16.3: Existence of and adherence to international legally binding rules on AWS.

   This is a direct indicator implied by the article’s main recommendation. The text explicitly states “the need for new legally binding rules.” Therefore, the successful negotiation, adoption, and ratification by states of a new international treaty or protocol on AWS would be a clear measure of progress in strengthening the rule of law in this area.

3. Indicator for Target 16.4 & 16.a: Number of states participating in and committing to international agreements on AWS.

   The article references the “High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).” An indicator of progress would be the number of states that actively participate in these discussions and ultimately sign and ratify new agreements that prohibit or restrict certain types of AWS. This reflects a strengthened international institutional capacity to control arms flows and prevent violence.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: icrc.org