Prohibiting Autonomous Weapons: Put Human Dignity First

Elvira Rosert and Frank Sauer

Global Policy, 2019, vol. 10, issue 3, 370-375

Abstract: In addition to its successful mobilization in stigmatization and norm‐setting processes on anti‐personnel landmines and cluster munitions, the principle of distinction as enshrined in International Humanitarian Law also figures prominently in the debate on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). Proponents of a ban on LAWS frame these as indiscriminate, that is, unable to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and thus as inherently unlawful. The flip side of this particular legal argument is, however, that LAWS become acceptable when considered capable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians. We thus argue, first, that this particular legal basis for the call for a ban on LAWS might be rendered obsolete by technological progress increasing discriminatory weapon capabilities. Second, we argue that the argument is normatively troubling as it suggests that, as long as civilians remain unharmed, attacking combatants with LAWS is acceptable. Consequently, we find that the legal principle of distinction is not the overall strongest argument to mobilize when trying to stigmatize and ban LAWS. A more fundamental, ethical argument within the debate about LAWS – and one less susceptible to ‘technological fixes’ – should be emphasized instead, namely that life and death decisions on the battlefield should always and in principle be made by humans only.

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12691

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:glopol:v:10:y:2019:i:3:p:370-375

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=1758-5880

Access Statistics for this article

Global Policy is currently edited by David Held, Patrick Dunleavy and Eva-Maria Nag

More articles in Global Policy from London School of Economics and Political Science Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().