"Are Autonomous Weapons Legal?" Topic

I always come to TMP for free legal advice.

Well I'm sure the world's governments would welcome our opinion on this problem, Winston …

Phil

Neither legal no illegal, rather simply not covered at all. What we need is a good sized war where autonomous weapons are used and the winner will decide if they are legal. That's pretty much the way it works.

trip wire guns, Land mines, and IEDs are autonomous weapons

Anything is legal if you win.

I am confident that nobody posting here actually understands international law on the subject.

If it's to our advantage for them to be legal then they are. If not then no. That's certainly the way the US government has been acting for the last 20 years.

When are people going to understand that when it comes to war there is only one rule.

That is to win by any means.

Just wait for the Wars that are coming in the future and if you are not in it to win by any means, then you will lose.

I voted yes, though in actuality, nothing is really fully autonomous, since some human has to enable it/them at some point.

Mako is right that without a definition, it gets kind of problematic to discuss.

Is a land mine "autonomous" ? Is a drone that moves and fights under its own programming autonomous if I programmed it to do so, under specific parameters?

Of course, we'd all do well to remember that any weapon that can be used on the enemy can be used on the citizen as well.

A few people bring up "the winners decide" but is that actually the case?

Gas, nuclear weapons and land mines were all used by the winners in wars, and all have seen reductions through treaty, great hesitation in use (gas and nuclear arms) or been outright phased out of production.

I think that under the current system they are legal in the same way that many of the examples cited are legal

The winners decision not to use a certain weapon is simply their choice, certainly not a fear of legal consequences. The First World nations with sufficient military and economic power cheerfully ignore any international institution that attempts to do anything that could interfere with a perception of national sovereignty. Consider the International Court of Justice, the permanent members of the Security Council for example will never have a leader or senior official in front of that august yet toothless body unless that particular nation chooses for internal reasons to toss a scapegoat on the pile and even that is highly unlikely. The US for example would never tolerate what would be perceived as a violation of national sovereignty. Legality is simply not an issue to a first world power although maintaining a veneer is always nice for the more tender of your citizens. China has already announced their intention to ignore the World Court on the South China Sea litigation and the US has, I believe, refused to even ratify any application of the ICC to US citizens. The 200 mile exclusive economic zone for any country only matters if you have a navy to enforce it or your neighbor chooses, on their terms, to honor it and even then, honor is best reinforced with a big stick. In a world where nasty, brutish and short still applies, legal is only what you have the power to compel. If you're Serbia or the Ukraine, you would be wise to behave or better still, not get caught being obvious, if the US, Russia, China or the UK, not so much.

Well put, McKinstry. The legality of 'autonomous' weapons such as drones will only ever be called into question by the Security Council when the first world's opponents – whether smaller nations or terrorist/resistance groups – learn to fight back, hijacking existing autonomous systems or start producing their own.

Neither legal no illegal, rather simply not covered at all.

Then they are legal. Things cannot be illegal unless there is a law declaring them so.

rmaker: Not necessarily so. The SOFA agreement the US has with Germany does not allow for the MPs to carry MACE, a non-leathal form of defence. The MPs therefore are not allowed to carry it. Why? Because MACE was not invented when the SOFA agreement was signed. Despite numberous attempts over the years by both parties to ammend the signed agreement, it remains essentially the same as originally signed and thusly, not addressed.

Unfortunately, so much of international law is, at best, open to varying interpretation and accepting that we are nowhere near fielding really "autonomous" weapons, I think the point is moot. That said, in 10-20 years, this could (probably will) change.