Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: India
Delegate Name: Natascia Leonardi
School: Roeper School
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All India position papers GLIMUN 2015 committees
An internationally agreed definition of Autonomous Weapon Systems (or AWS) still does not exist. Only during the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, for the purpose of the meeting, the participants defined it as an autonomous weapon system that has autonomy in its ‘critical functions’, meaning a weapon that can select and attack targets without human intervention.
India believes that robotics, in the past decade, has progressed dramatically, but it has some limitations: it cannot make decisions and does not have reasoning like humans. Autonomous Weapon Systems cannot perceive the environment and adapt to unexpected changes (consequently: outside of simple environments they cannot operate). With more autonomy, such weapons will be more unpredictable in operation. Is it morally acceptable for a machine to make life and death decisions on the battlefield, without human intervention? India believes there is a need to enhance understanding about the humanitarian impact of autonomous weapons.
We agree that lethal autonomous weapon systems, in the context of the objective and purposes of the Convention of Conventional Weapons (CCW), could be further explored.
India appreciates the efforts to organize meetings to learn more about AWS. We hope that such meetings can allow exchanges of views to see whether it would be possible to further examine this issue for future potential action.
India has noted there are many dimensions to this issue. India emphasizes the need to focus on the legal, ethical, and humanitarian aspects of this issue. While many other nations have not developed any policies or still have not discussed the issue openly, the United States and United Kingdom have already developed publicly available national policies that establish that “autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems shall be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force” (US) and that “autonomous release of weapons” will not be permitted and that “…operation of weapon systems will always be under human control.” (UK) Additionally, some nations suggest that AWS could operate and be useful to develop new technology if it might reduce the impact of armed conflict on one’s own forces and on civilians, but it is more likely that AWS will have limited capabilities to comply with IHL (International Humanitarian Law), and that many of the perceived advantages could be achieved using weapon systems that are remotely operated under direct human control.
India suggests that if some nations have developed or are developing AWS, they should share how they are ensuring that these weapons can be used in compliance with IHL, and in particular share the limits and conditions imposed on the use of weapons with autonomous functions, including in terms of the required level of human control.
