Autonomous Weapon Systems in International Humanitarian Law: A Thematic Review of the Literature on Distinction, Proportionality, Human Control, and Accountability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61353/ma.0250447Keywords:
Autonomous Weapon Systems, International Humanitarian Law, Distinction, Proportionality, Human Control, Legal AccountabilityAbstract
This article reviews legal scholarship on autonomous weapon systems under international humanitarian law, focusing on distinction, proportionality, precautions, human control, and accountability. It adopts an integrative thematic review of peer-reviewed studies, books, institutional reports, and documents published between 2012 and 2026. The literature clusters around four trajectories: assessing compliance with existing rules; connecting legality with predictability and operational context; treating human control as the basis for judgment and responsibility; and supporting a two-tier regulatory model combining prohibitions and restrictions. The review locates the legal center of gravity in the alignment of system characteristics, mission parameters, target environments, and human supervision. It proposes a synthetic framework linking weapons review with use-specific review and identifies priorities for Arabic scholarship concerning command responsibility, performance testing, targeting records, and accountability across distributed decision chains.
References
- المراجع العربية
1. الإكيابي، سلوى. (٢٠٢٣). نظم الأسلحة ذاتية التشغيل: دراسة في إطار قواعد القانون الدولي. دار النهضة العربية.
2. حاتم، دعاء جليل، وجعفر، محمود خليل. (٢٠٢١). الأسلحة ذاتية التشغيل في ضوء مبادئ القانون الدولي الإنساني. مجلة العلوم القانونية، ٣٥(٣)، ٢٨٠–٣٠٥. https://doi.org/10.35246/jols.v35i3.344
3. السيلاوي، هاني عبد الله عمران، وحمزة، قاسم ماضي. (٢٠٢١). الروبوتات القاتلة: دراسة في ضوء القانون الدولي. مجلة العلوم الإنسانية، ٢٨(٣)، ١–١٨. https://doi.org/10.33855/0905-028-003-042
4. فرهود، محمد عبد الرحمن، وعايش، حسام بردان. (٢٠٢٦). تأثير الأسلحة ذاتية التشغيل على مبادئ القانون الدولي الإنساني. مجلة خليج العرب للدراسات الإنسانية والاجتماعية، ٤(١٢)، ١–١١.
- References
5. Amoroso, D., & Tamburrini, G. (2020). Autonomous weapons systems and meaningful human control: Ethical and legal issues. Current Robotics Reports, 1(4), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00024-3
6. Amoroso, D., & Tamburrini, G. (2021). Toward a normative model of meaningful human control over weapons systems. Ethics & International Affairs, 35(2), 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679421000241
7. Asaro, P. M. (2012). On banning autonomous weapon systems: Human rights, automation, and the dehumanization of lethal decision-making. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 687–709. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000768
8. Bo, M. (2023). Criminal responsibility by omission for failures to stop autonomous weapon systems. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1057–1075. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad029
9. Bo, M., Bruun, L., & Boulanin, V. (2022). Retaining human responsibility in the development and use of autonomous weapon systems: On accountability for violations of international humanitarian law involving AWS. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.55163/AHBC1664
10. Boulanin, V., Goussac, N., & Bruun, L. (2021). Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law: Identifying limits and the required type and degree of human–machine interaction. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
11. Boulanin, V., Peldán Carlsson, M., Goussac, N., & Davison, N. (2020). Limits on autonomy in weapon systems: Identifying practical elements of human control. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and International Committee of the Red Cross.
12. Bruun, L. (2024). Towards a two-tiered approach to the regulation of autonomous weapon systems: Identifying pathways and possible elements. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.55163/LPED7967
13. Bruun, L., Bo, M., & Goussac, N. (2023). Compliance with international humanitarian law in the development and use of autonomous weapon systems: What does IHL permit, prohibit and require? Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.55163/DFXR3984
14. Coco, A. (2023). Exploring the impact of automation bias and complacency on individual criminal responsibility for war crimes. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad034
15. Crootof, R. (2015). The killer robots are here: Legal and policy implications. Cardozo Law Review, 36(5), 1837–1915.
16. Ekelhof, M. A. C. (2017). Complications of a common language: Why it is so hard to talk about autonomous weapons. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 22(2), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krw029
17. Ekelhof, M. A. C. (2018). Lifting the fog of targeting: “Autonomous weapons” and human control through the lens of military targeting. Naval War College Review, 71(3), 61–94. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol71/iss3/6
18. Gaeta, P. (2023). Who acts when autonomous weapons strike? The act requirement for individual criminal responsibility and state responsibility. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1033–1055. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae001
19. Goussac, N., & Pacholska, M. (2025). The interpretation and application of international humanitarian law in relation to lethal autonomous weapon systems. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. https://unidir.org/publication/the-interpretation-and-application-of-international-humanitarian-law-in-relation-to-lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems/
20. Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. (2019). Guiding principles affirmed by the Group of Governmental Experts on emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems (CCW/MSP/2019/9, Annex III). United Nations.
21. Grut, C. (2013). The challenge of autonomous lethal robotics to international humanitarian law. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 18(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krt002
22. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2006). A guide to the legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare: Measures to implement Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977. International Review of the Red Cross, 88(864), 931–956. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383107000938
23. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2021). ICRC position on autonomous weapon systems. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-position-autonomous-weapon-systems
24. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2026). Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law: Selected issues [Position paper]. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/4896_002_Autonomous_Weapons_Systems_-_IHL-ICRC.pdf
25. International Committee of the Red Cross, & United Nations. (2026, August 25). Renewed call from UN Secretary-General and ICRC President to adopt rules on autonomous weapon systems. https://www.icrc.org/en/statement/renewed-call-un-secretary-general-and-icrc-president-adopt-rules-autonomous-weapon-systems
26. Jain, A. G. (2023). Autonomous weapon systems, errors and breaches of international humanitarian law. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1005–1032. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad043
27. Lewis, D. A. (2023). War crimes involving autonomous weapons: Responsibility, liability and accountability. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 965–980. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad027
28. McFarland, T. (2022). Minimum levels of human intervention in autonomous attacks. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 27(3), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krac021
29. McFarland, T., & McCormack, T. (2014). Mind the gap: Can developers of autonomous weapons systems be liable for war crimes? International Law Studies, 90, 361–383. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol90/iss1/2
30. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.
31. Sassòli, M. (2014). Autonomous weapons and international humanitarian law: Advantages, open technical questions and legal issues to be clarified. International Law Studies, 90, 308–340. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol90/iss1/1
32. Schmitt, M. N., & Thurnher, J. S. (2013). “Out of the loop”: Autonomous weapon systems and the law of armed conflict. Harvard National Security Journal, 4, 231–281.
33. Sharkey, N. E. (2012). The evitability of autonomous robot warfare. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 787–799. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000732
34. Spadaro, A. (2023). A weapon is no subordinate: Autonomous weapon systems and the scope of superior responsibility. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1119–1136. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad025
35. United Nations General Assembly. (2023). Lethal autonomous weapons systems (A/RES/78/241). https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/78/241
36. United Nations General Assembly. (2024a). Lethal autonomous weapons systems (A/RES/79/62). https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/79/62
37. United Nations General Assembly. (2024b). Lethal autonomous weapons systems: Report of the Secretary-General (A/79/88). https://docs.un.org/en/A/79/88
38. Winter, E. (2022). The compatibility of autonomous weapons with the principles of international humanitarian law. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krac001
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
