to stop the development of autonomous weapon systems before the defense sector makes these weapons a reality, writes former Peace Prize winner Mary Wareham.
This article is machine translated by Google from Norwegian
Sometimes diplomacy has to run its course
fixed for progress to be possible. This is exactly what happened in
November 2018 when a number of states agreed to continue the multilateral
the talks on lethal autonomous weapon systems in 2019, though without any clear
objectives for negotiating an agreement.
Paralyzing consensus requirements
The idea that weapon systems will be able to select and attack targets without human interference causes concerns to rise. The serious consequences of such weapons systems have become too numerous for us to overlook them and touch on both ethical and moral issues as well as issues related to technology, operation and proliferation.
The idea that weapon systems will be able to select and attack targets without human interference causes concerns to rise.
In the past, the states that have signed the UN Weapons Convention have blamed civil society for not taking hold of the unacceptable damage caused by cluster bombs, or the major humanitarian damage caused by anti-personnel mines. Nevertheless, it was not the coalition of non-governmental organizations that blamed the state for its failure to act. Rather, the blame lies with the tyranny of the majority and a form of decision based on a crippling consensus requirement – a method of agreement that has also paralyzed other disarmament agreements forums.
Weapon investment creates fear
In November, Russia succeeded in torpedoing the ambition of a majority of states trying to negotiate a new protocol in the UN weapons convention to ensure meaningful human control over weapons systems and their perpetration of violence. But it could just as well have been China, Israel, South Korea or the United States: These nations invest significantly in weapons with an ever-lower level of human control in their critical functions, thus creating fears of a widespread proliferation of such weapons in new arms races.
We have seen
this movie before. If the UN arms convention is not reached, this means that states
who are concerned about fully automated weapons will probably have to look elsewhere
funds to create a new international agreement. Perhaps via a diplomatic
process led by like-minded states outside UN protection. UN's
general meeting is another possibility, since they have already presented the agreement
on the prohibition of nuclear weapons after the nuclear powers failed in their intentions to
disarmament.
Autonomous weapons must be banned
International humanitarian disarmament agreements have succeeded in reducing and preventing human suffering, even without the signatures of the leading state powers. If such a process is embarked upon, it could lead, but it requires political courage and bold leadership, supported by resources and partnerships with UN agencies, the International Red Cross Committee (ICRC) and NGOs. The UN stands clear after Secretary-General António Guterres referred to autonomous weapons systems as "politically unacceptable and morally abhorrent" and asked Member States to ban them.
Most people relate more and more
averse to lethal autonomous weapons. A recent survey in 26 countries shows that
61 percent of those questioned were against such weapons, and that is an increase from 56
percent 2 years ago.
As the diplomatic course is stalled, the Campaign steps to halt killing robots (Campaign to Stop Killer Robots) launched its offensive in all the world's capitals to encourage the respective authorities to lead efforts to ban such robots.
We have one
moral duty to act. We must take on this challenge together. Claim
negotiations on a new agreement to stop killer robots before the defense sector's
investments in artificial intelligence and related technologies do these
the weapons to reality.