Autonomous weapon systems and jus ad bellum.

Question 1

What is the main focus of the article on autonomous weapon systems (AWS)?

Answer 1

The article focuses on the ethical and policy debates surrounding AWS, particularly objections based on jus ad bellum principles, such as proportionality and last resort.

Question 2

What are the jus ad bellum principles discussed in relation to AWS in the article?

Answer 2

The principles of proportionality and last resort are highlighted, with concerns that AWS might increase the likelihood of war by lowering costs or serving propaganda purposes

Question 3

How might AWS impact the principle of proportionality in jus ad bellum?

Answer 3

The article suggests AWS could lower the costs of war (human and economic), potentially leading to a higher incidence of war, but this oversimplifies proportionality, which includes complex ethical considerations.

Question 4

What does the principle of last resort entail in the context of AWS?

Answer 4

Last resort requires exhausting other diplomatic measures before war; concerns exist that AWS might encourage premature recourse to war by making it more politically and economically viable.

Question 5

Does the article argue that AWS comply with jus ad bellum principles?

Answer 5

No, the authors argue that jus ad bellum principles may not adequately address the ethical challenges posed by AWS and suggest that new frameworks might be needed to assess AWS’s impact on warfare.

Question 6

What are some limitations the authors find in applying jus ad bellum principles to AWS?

Answer 6

They point out difficulties in calculating proportionality, confusion between proportionality and precision, and the evolving nature of war due to technological advancements like AWS.

Question 7

What is the authors’ stance on AWS and their ethical implications?

Answer 7

While not claiming AWS are justifiable, the authors argue that jus ad bellum principles might not be the best ethical tools for evaluating AWS, emphasizing the need for updated ethical approaches.

Question 8

Why do the authors argue that AWS could change the nature of war itself?

Answer 8

AWS introduce capabilities that challenge traditional warfare ethics, suggesting that new forms of war might require new ethical frameworks.

Question 9

How does the article suggest jus ad bellum objections to AWS might be misleading?

Answer 9

It suggests these objections oversimplify the complex ethical impact of AWS and do not fully account for the ways AWS transform warfare.

Question 10

What capability distinguishes autonomous weapon systems (AWS) in modern warfare?

Answer 10

AWS can “identify, select, and attack the target” without human intervention, marking a significant advancement in military technology.

Question 11

Why are AWS ethically and legally challenging?

Answer 11

AWS raise complex questions about responsibility, human dignity, and meaningful human control, which are difficult to address within existing ethical and legal frameworks.

Question 12

Since when has there been extensive debate on the ethics of AWS?

Answer 12

The debate has intensified since a 2012 executive order by the US Department of Defense, with global discussions led by entities like the United Nations.

Question 13

What are some of the main ethical concerns associated with AWS?

Answer 13

Key concerns include responsibility if something goes wrong, potential loss of human dignity in delegating kill decisions to machines, and the extent of human control over AWS.

Question 14

Which principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) do AWS challenge?

Answer 14

AWS challenge IHL principles such as proportionality, discrimination, and necessity, essential guidelines for conducting war ethically and legally.

Question 15

What tradition do scholars refer to when addressing the ethical challenges posed by AWS?

Answer 15

Scholars turn to Just War theory, a philosophical tradition that underpins much of IHL, to evaluate the ethical implications of AWS in warfare.

Question 16

Which two jus ad bellum principles are central to objections against AWS in this article?

Answer 16

The principles of proportionality and last resort are central, as AWS may make it easier to go to war by lowering human and economic costs.

Question 17

What is jus ad bellum in the context of Just War theory?

Answer 17

Jus ad bellum consists of principles that justify the reasons for going to war, separate from principles that govern conduct during war.

Question 18

How does the introduction suggest AWS might disrupt traditional warfare ethics?

Answer 18

AWS may increase the incidence of war and alter the foundational ethics of war, pushing scholars to question whether Just War principles are sufficient to address AWS’s impacts.

Question 19

What is the principle of ad bellum proportionality in Just War theory?

Answer 19

Ad bellum proportionality requires that the overall harm caused by war must be proportionate to the benefits it aims to achieve, considering both material and moral costs.

Question 20

What is the overall goal of the article regarding the use of AWS?

Answer 20

The article aims to evaluate whether jus ad bellum principles are adequate for assessing the ethical implications of AWS or if new frameworks are needed.

Question 21

How does ad bellum proportionality relate to AWS?

Answer 21

Critics argue that AWS could lower the human and economic costs of war, potentially making it easier for states to justify going to war.

Question 22

What is a primary limitation of the ad bellum proportionality objection to AWS?

Answer 22

Calculating proportionality is complex and uncertain, as it involves predicting future costs and benefits that are often indeterminate.

Question 23

Why is the precision of AWS not equivalent to ad bellum proportionality?

Answer 23

Precision refers to the technical accuracy of AWS, while proportionality requires a broader ethical assessment of war’s overall impact, which is more complex than weapon accuracy.

Question 24

What misconception about AWS and proportionality is highlighted in the article?

Answer 24

The article argues that both proponents and opponents of AWS sometimes confuse weapon precision with proportionality, overlooking the broader ethical considerations involved.

Question 25

How does technological advancement, like AWS, challenge traditional views of proportionality?

Answer 25

Technological advancements can transform the nature of war, requiring an evolving ethical framework, as traditional views may not fully apply to new modes of warfare.

Question 26

What does the article suggest about using ad bellum proportionality to evaluate AWS?

Answer 26

The article suggests that ad bellum proportionality might not be the best tool to assess AWS, as it oversimplifies the ethical impact of AWS on warfare.

Question 27

How does the dynamic nature of war impact proportionality calculations for AWS?

Answer 27

War evolves with technological advances like AWS, making it challenging to apply a static concept of proportionality to a changing warfare landscape.

Question 28

Why is it difficult to foresee the impact of AWS on the likelihood of war?

Answer 28

Predicting the outcomes of AWS deployment involves complex and speculative calculations about future wars, their severity, and the ethical implications.

Question 29

What overall conclusion does the article draw about the ad bellum proportionality objection to AWS?

Answer 29

The article concludes that ad bellum proportionality is limited as a framework for assessing AWS, as it fails to account for the ethical complexities and transformations AWS bring to modern warfare.

Question 30

What is the principle of “last resort” in Just War theory?

Answer 30

The principle of last resort requires that all other means of resolving a conflict be exhausted before resorting to war.

Question 31

Why is AWS seen as a threat to the principle of last resort?

Answer 31

Critics argue that AWS could make war politically and economically more convenient, leading states to choose war before exploring all alternative solutions.

Question 32

How does the reduced “body-bag count” relate to the last resort objection to AWS?

Answer 32

Reduced casualties due to AWS could lower the public and political barriers to war, potentially removing a significant deterrent to engaging in conflict.

Question 33

How might AWS affect democratic states’ decisions to go to war?

Answer 33

In democracies, leaders might leverage AWS’s reduced casualty rates to gain public support for war, even when citizens are otherwise reluctant.

Question 34

What does the principle of last resort say about the timing of war?

Answer 34

The principle states that war should be undertaken “as late as possible, as early as necessary,” only after exploring all viable alternatives to armed conflict.

Question 35

According to the article, does the existence of AWS inherently violate the last resort principle?

Answer 35

No, the violation of last resort is tied more to political leaders’ choices and willingness to follow Just War principles than to the mere existence of AWS.

Question 36

What misconception about the last resort principle does the article address?

Answer 36

The article clarifies that last resort does not mean every single alternative must be exhausted but requires a realistic judgment on the potential success of alternatives.

Question 37

What role does technological innovation play in last resort assessments for AWS?

Answer 37

The article notes that new technologies like AWS may influence decisions on proportionality and last resort, underscoring the need to remain vigilant about unforeseen consequences.

Question 38

What does the article suggest is necessary when considering the last resort principle and AWS?

Answer 38

The article recommends a deeper understanding of how AWS impacts broader political, cultural, and operational frameworks to address last resort concerns effectively.

Question 39

What is the article’s conclusion regarding last resort objections to AWS?

Answer 39

The article concludes that while AWS may influence the decision to go to war, concerns about violating last resort are more about leaders’ adherence to ethical principles than the weapons themselves.

Question 40

What is the article’s main argument about the use of jus ad bellum principles for AWS?

Answer 40

The article argues that jus ad bellum principles, such as proportionality and last resort, are not the most effective ethical tools for assessing the unique challenges posed by AWS.

Question 41

How do ad bellum objections to AWS contribute to the ethical debate, according to the article?

Answer 41

Although ad bellum objections are conceptually limited, they highlight the role that AWS could play in potentially increasing or escalating conflict due to technological innovation.

Question 42

Does the article conclude that AWS are acceptable or justifiable?

Answer 42

No, the article does not argue that AWS are acceptable or justifiable; rather, it suggests that current jus ad bellum principles might not adequately address AWS’s ethical challenges.

Question 43

What two key contributions to the AWS debate does the article provide?

Answer 43

First, it clarifies that jus ad bellum principles may be insufficient for AWS ethics. Second, it stresses the importance of understanding how AWS transforms the nature of warfare before assessing its ethical implications.

Question 44

Why does the article suggest we need to track how AWS transforms warfare?

Answer 44

The article posits that understanding the transformative impact of AWS on warfare is essential to develop ethical frameworks that are relevant to these new forms of conflict.

Question 45

What risk does the article highlight about relying on ad bellum objections to regulate AWS?

Answer 45

The article warns that ad bellum objections might mislead assessments of AWS’s ethical impact, as they do not fully consider the complex nature of AWS and modern warfare.

Question 46

How might the concept of “precision violence” mislead ethical evaluations of AWS?

Answer 46

Precision violence, often associated with AWS, may create an illusion of ethical warfare but fails to address the broader ethical impact and potential escalation of conflict due to AWS.

Question 47

What is a primary ethical requirement the article suggests for AWS debate?

Answer 47

The article suggests that understanding AWS’s impact on the fundamental nature of war is a preliminary and essential requirement for any ethical analysis of these systems.

Question 48

How does the article view the role of technological myths in the AWS debate?

Answer 48

The article suggests that myths about technological innovation and precision violence could obscure the true ethical considerations needed for evaluating AWS.

Question 49

What is the article’s hope for future ethical debates on AWS?

Answer 49

The authors hope that clarifying the limitations of current ethical objections will lead to a more rigorous and comprehensive debate on the ethical use and regulation of AWS.