In a new publication, researcher Jonathan Kwik proposes a scaling methodology to help characterise attacks by autonomous weapon systems (AWS). This could provide greater clarity on the legality of such attacks under international law, benefiting both civilians and belligerents.
The new publication ‘The scope of an autonomous attack’ by Asser Institute researcher Jonathan Kwik addresses a crucial but often overlooked aspect of the debate on autonomous weapon systems (AWS): How broadly should we define ‘an attack’?
Consider this example: At 12.00 hours, Commander-A activated an autonomous weapon system to attack a tank platoon, resulting in 7 shots fired at 4 tanks. Later, at 15.00 hours, the same system was deployed to attack 4 tanks guarding the city’s main routes, releasing 6 shots.
How many attacks did Commander-A launch today?
Scaling potential scopes of attacks
International law regulates warfare by defining what constitutes an ‘attack’. However, there is currently no consensus on what exactly constitutes an autonomous weapon systems attack, leading to legal ambiguities and practical challenges.
To address this uncertainty, Kwik suggests using a scaling methodology to determine an attack’s ‘scope’. This method helps military commanders decide the extent of autonomous activity that can be considered a single attack under international law, considering the proximity in time and space. Clarity on the ‘attack scope’ benefits both civilians and belligerents by balancing humanitarian and military interests.
Kwik’s methodology shows that the scope of autonomous weapon systems attacks can vary widely. An attack could be defined as a single shot, a series of shots at the same target, bursts of shots targeting small groups, or a broader campaign against multiple objectives with a shared ‘signature.’
Attack scope spectrum
According to Kwik, these varying definitions can be summarised into an ‘attack scope spectrum,’ including:
- Shot: Each individual shot
- Single: All shots at the same target
- Group: Bursts of shots at small groups
- Signature: All shots against targets with a shared characteristic
For example, if we define an attack by each shot, Commander-A launched 13 attacks. If we define it by tallying the number of targets, there were 8 attacks.
Determining the appropriate scope for autonomous weapon systems attacks
Before each attack, military commanders must conduct a legal analysis based on proportionality, precautions, etc. The chosen scope affects the level of involvement, creating trade-offs between protection and practicality. Humanitarian interests favour narrow interpretations, while military efficiency prefers broader ones.
A broad interpretation (e.g., ‘each activation’) allows extensive autonomous activity, while a narrow one (e.g., ‘each shot’) could limit the use of autonomous weapon systems entirely. Kwik advocates for a middle-ground approach, balancing humanitarian and military needs. The appropriate scope for a single attack is determined by the proximity in time and space, which are context specific.
Therefore, if we apply Kwik’s methodology to the provided example, we conclude that Commander-A has launched 5 attacks.
Wondering how we reached 5 even though this does not align with any of the mentioned scopes? Find your answer by reading the full article and explore how the methodology can be applied in practice.
