Why reciprocity prohibits autonomous weapons systems in war

• Published in: Ai and ethics (Online) Vol. 3; no. 2; pp. 619 - 624
• Main Author: Brand, Joshua L. M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.05.2023; Springer
• Subjects: Artificial Intelligence; Computer Science; Ethics; Humanities and Social Sciences; Life Sciences; Original Research; Philosophy; Autonomous weapons systems; Deontology; Jus in bello; Reciprocity
• ISSN: 2730-5953; 2730-5961
• DOI: 10.1007/s43681-022-00193-1

This paper presents the argument that there ought to be a categorical ban on autonomous weapons systems (AWS) in warfare. First, I provide a foundational argument that international humanitarian law ( jus in bello ) is deontological. Following the argument shared by Peter Asaro and Robert Sparrow, I then argue that AWS lack the ability to properly acknowledge its target and consequently, breaches jus in bello principles. I, however, go further than Asaro and Sparrow by emphasizing the necessity of reciprocity for deontological law. Because AWS lack a constitutive symmetry with human combatants, humans and AWS cannot coexist in warfare if they are to respect the existing international principles. After addressing foreseeable objections, including arguments for reducing deaths and the prohibition of other weapons, I conclude that a categorical ban of AWS remains a reasonable consideration. The benefit of this paper is that it avoids complex and hypothetical considerations of future developments of AWS capabilities. It also shows that if the moral underpinnings of jus in bello principles are respected, then categorically banning AWS from warfare is already an accepted position.