To ban or not to ban. Analyzing the banning process of autonomous weapon systems

Celien De Stercke
{"title":"To ban or not to ban. Analyzing the banning process of autonomous weapon systems","authors":"Celien De Stercke","doi":"10.38126/jspg210102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade, autonomous weapon systems (AWS), also known as ‘killer robots’, have been the subject of widespread debate. These systems impose various ethical, legal, and societal concerns with arguments both in favor and opposed to the weaponry. Consequently, an international policy debate arose out of an urge to ban these systems. AWS are widely discussed at the Human Rights Council debate, the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, and at gatherings of the Convention of Conventional Weapons (CCW), in particular the Expert Meetings on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). Early skepticism towards the use of AWS brought a potential ban to the forefront of policy making decisions with the support of a campaign to 'Stop Killer Robots' launched by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013. The movement is supported by Amnesty International, Pax Christi International, and the International Peace Bureau, among others. This campaign has catalyzed an international regulation process on the level of the United Nations (UN). Both a new protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons or a new international treaty have been considered. However, a lack of consensus stalls the process, and as such, leaves AWS in a regulatory gray zone.","PeriodicalId":222224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg210102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the last decade, autonomous weapon systems (AWS), also known as ‘killer robots’, have been the subject of widespread debate. These systems impose various ethical, legal, and societal concerns with arguments both in favor and opposed to the weaponry. Consequently, an international policy debate arose out of an urge to ban these systems. AWS are widely discussed at the Human Rights Council debate, the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, and at gatherings of the Convention of Conventional Weapons (CCW), in particular the Expert Meetings on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). Early skepticism towards the use of AWS brought a potential ban to the forefront of policy making decisions with the support of a campaign to 'Stop Killer Robots' launched by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013. The movement is supported by Amnesty International, Pax Christi International, and the International Peace Bureau, among others. This campaign has catalyzed an international regulation process on the level of the United Nations (UN). Both a new protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons or a new international treaty have been considered. However, a lack of consensus stalls the process, and as such, leaves AWS in a regulatory gray zone.
禁止还是不禁止。自主武器系统禁制过程分析
在过去的十年里,自主武器系统(AWS),也被称为“杀手机器人”,一直是广泛争论的主题。这些系统将各种伦理、法律和社会问题与支持和反对武器的争论结合起来。因此,一场关于禁止这些系统的国际政策辩论就此展开。在人权理事会辩论、联合国大会裁军和国际安全第一委员会以及《常规武器公约》(CCW)会议,特别是致命自主武器系统(LAWS)专家会议上,AWS得到了广泛讨论。在人权观察组织(HRW) 2013年发起的“阻止杀手机器人”运动的支持下,早期对使用AWS的怀疑使一项潜在的禁令成为政策制定决策的前沿。该运动得到了大赦国际、基督和平国际和国际和平局等组织的支持。这一运动促进了联合国一级的国际监管进程。《常规武器公约》的一项新议定书或一项新的国际条约都已被考虑。然而,缺乏共识阻碍了这一进程,因此,AWS处于监管的灰色地带。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信