Autonomous Weapon Systems

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Afghanistan
Delegate Name: Michaela Zewde
School: Williamston High School

With recent technological advances in robotics, the concept of warfare has completely changed. By using autonomous weapon systems, a human pilot is no longer necessary in order to interact in combat. This new form of attack has increasingly become popular among countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, who send AWSs to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and more. Though international law and regulations concerning AWSs already exist, the United Nations must now reconsider the ethics of these attacks, as well as future proceedings concerning the use of robotics in military endeavors.

Being as Afghanistan is one of the few nations frequently attacked by autonomous weapon systems, the country has a more complex viewpoint on the issue. Due to the presence of the Taliban as well as the Islamic State, drone strikes are needed to eliminate members of the fundamentalist terrorist groups. It has also become ubiquitous that the use of unmanned drones leads to high numbers of civilian casualties. However, if the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles occurs without a nation’s consent, it is an infringement on sovereignty. Given the current, lenient laws regarding the use of drone strikes, Afghanistan is pushing for more comprehensive action to be taken place to protect not only itself but other nations as well.

Often times, civilian casualties occur as a result of faulty intelligence or indiscriminate attacks. Though these casualties can not always be prevented, they can be massively reduced by precise intelligence. Hence, international law must be put in place to protect the rights of nations consenting to drone strikes during and after the agreed upon time frame. In addition, Afghanistan desires further research into the use of robotics in warfare, as well as the establishment of international law regulating which circumstances drone strikes may be utilized. Seeing as the formation of a highly technological society is inevitable, it would be illogical to restrict the use of AWSs. Afghanistan is looking to those involved in the Resolute Support Mission to endorse its efforts to create a safer environment for the entire world population.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Angola
Delegate Name: Gregory Poole
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

This world has, unfortunately, always seen conflict between, as American historian Jared Diamond put it, “the haves and the have nots.” And, as one might expect, they generally, with a few exceptions, end in favor of the “haves”. Industrialized nations have many advantages: superior guns, tanks, planes, boats, armor, training, resources. They can bomb, shoot, and missile their enemies, hardly giving them the chance to fight back.

But it’s that chance that is important. Though the odds are against them, it is possible for the underdeveloped nation, the impoverished country to hold off a much larger attacker by simply making it too costly for them to continue. That cost, as unfortunate as it is, must be in human lives.

Sadly, it is true that no country properly values the lives of its enemies. They are a foe, to be shot and killed as soon as looked at. But it is also true that every country values the lives of its servicemen above all else. Few nations will risk the lives of their own soldiers if the benefit does not seem as great as the losses suffered or that will be suffered.

But now we have come to an age of technology and information, of robotics and machines. These unmanned fighting units could prove invaluable in the field of combat, as they can be deployed in more risky situations without threat to a country’s human personnel. They soon will be able to assess situations with superhuman ability, potentially allowing them to out-think their human counterparts.

This cannot be allowed to continue. Increasing use of current AWSs, such as UAV drones, could significantly reduce to perceived downsides to military intervention by lowering the threat of human casualties. More significantly, AWSs can be used to cross territory lines without the threat of international retribution; though Angola believes such actions to be illegal, the legal ramifications are currently ambiguous and unclear.

There are obvious humanitarian issues that arise with the use of AWSs as well, owing to the lack of compassion and discrimination of targets an automated system currently and for some time is capable of. AWSs have difficulty with the difference between a target and a citizen, and determining when lethal force is necessary.

But the biggest issue is that it devalues human life. One of the big equalizers in war is the idea of a life for a life. When a nation decides to take the path of violence, the path of war, it is done on the understanding that lives will be lost, that some of their soldiers will die. AWSs remove that price. AWSs cost money, not life. The price of an automated weapon will never be held to the same level as that of human life.

But AWSs are not available equally. The technology, money, and infrastructure necessary to create, maintain, and operate these robots is only accessible to already industrialized nations; in other words, the already powerful nations. Only superpowers and their choice of allies could afford to utilize such weapons. As such, the underdeveloped or developing nations would once more be left behind; the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” would only increase, and such an increase would only serve to devalue the lives of industrialized nations’ enemies.

We, the Disarmament and International Security Committee, must take the vital step and ban the use of automated weapon systems. Though the details must be worked out through dialogue and discussion, Angola will never back down. Angola will never stop fighting for the rights and value of humanity, and for the rights of nations.

The use of AWSs could ruin our perception of humanity and each other. Your life is no longer worth as much as mine, we would be saying. Your life is worth the same as my robot.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Argentina
Delegate Name: Collin Sharpe
School: Royal Oak High School

On March 1, 1999, the Ottawa Treaty, created by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, was entered into force. As it’s title suggests, it’s purpose was to “…put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines…”. This was because of the terrible, unintended consequences of their placement. Noncombatants, innocent civilians who had no idea that there was an explosive right under their feet, were stepping on them. The collateral damage caused by the mines that, at the time of the treaty, killed or maimed …”hundreds of people every week…” was in no way acceptable by any means. It sought to ban anti-personnel mines and destroy as many stockpiles of them as they could. Argentina, the whole of Latin America, and, indeed, the vast majority of the member states, 162 of 193, are parties to this treaty. The world recognized the destructive potential of weapons that are capable of indiscriminately killing civilians, and tried to put a stop to it.

We, the members of the United Nations, have an opportunity to stop a similar and potentially more destructive situation before it starts. Autonomous weapons systems, defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross, are weapons “…that can select (i.e. search for or detect, identify, track) and attack (i.e. intercept, use force against, neutralise, damage or destroy) targets without human intervention.” These weapons are machines that do not rely upon human judgement, reasoning, and adaptability to change, which is currently far superior to any kind of programming we have today. Instead, they have to rely upon far simpler programming that is uncertain in its very nature. That fact, along with the variable and dynamic environments found in a war, creates a huge amount of room for error. This error can and will cause innocent civilians to die.This cannot be allowed, and is not justifiable in any way. The decision of whether or not to strip someone of their life is too serious a matter to be delegated to a machine, and can only be left to the superior judgement of humans. This can also create an “accountability gap” where nobody is directly responsible for any unintended deaths, as nobody directly fired a weapon.

Another concern that these weapons pose, which Argentina has expressed concern about in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council representing GRULAC in 2013, are that in using them, we may become morally and ethically divorced from the conflicts we send them into. This can cause us to not feel the impact of lives lost and countries ripped apart by our actions, creating a normalization of conflict. This normalization of conflict may lower the threshold of acts of retaliation and cause even more damage without consideration of the impact of our actions.

However, Argentina recognizes the practical and ethical military use of current and future autonomous systems that do not use lethal force, such as electronic jamming systems, autopilot, missile defense systems, and surveillance, which Argentina has made use of itself to track down wealthy tax evaders, and is currently developing military-grade drones for surveillance itself It also recognizes the use of lethal force from these systems as well, as they do not put personnel at risk and can get to places ground troops can’t, having one of the strongest militaries in its region.

This prompts the question of how we can reconcile the utility of autonomous systems in the military and the destructive potential they have for innocent noncombatants in their flawed and limited reasoning and judgement built into their very nature, combined with the disturbing lack of accountability for their actions, and to make sure that states that say they will do so do so.

What Argentina believes a good resolution should consist of is the creation of something similar to the Ottawa Treaty, in that states voluntarily agree to ban within their own territory autonomous systems that can use lethal force without “meaningful human control”, that has built-in compliance mechanisms, such as a regular compliance report or inspection or perhaps withdrawal of aid or trade from other states party to the treaty. Regional treaties, tailored to each region’s needs to be signed by members of regional organizations, could provide more enforcement mechanisms through the regional organization’s powers.

Of course, there must be a concrete definition for “meaningful human control” otherwise it can be interpreted in a way that essentially does nothing to solve the problem. An example of an adequate definition for this term, by Argentina’s terms, would be “Required human control of which of the targets selected by the system are attacked and when the targets selected by the system are attacked.”

This would provide a way for autonomous systems that cannot kill to be free of unnecessary regulation and for necessary regulation to be placed upon those that do This would provide accountability, requiring human judgement for the decision of whether to take a life, and making sure that those that make the call to use the weapons are not distant and isolated from the consequences of their actions and the lives they take.

Of course, in order to make sure that states that say they will implement the necessary regulations actually do so, transparency is necessary. For this purpose, inspectors from the United Nations, similar to the United Nations Special Commission created by United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to determine whether Iraq had been compliant with its obligations under the Geneva Protocol to destroy its chemical weapons, should be used to make sure that said states are compliant. Argentina recognizes the fact that the DISEC is a General Assembly committee means that any resolutions that are passed are not binding like the Geneva Protocol, but states that deny inspectors access to their weapons facilities will be seen as suspicious. Knowledge of that suspicion may lead a state’s trading partners to reconsider its trade agreements.

Argentina recognizes that there are other facets to this issue, such as other ways autonomous weapons systems can be regulated, the different levels of autonomy they can be given, and the different ways that international humanitarian law applies to these weapons, and hopes to discuss them in committee. It wishes to stop the lack of accountability for the actions of autonomous weapons systems, create a clear-cut definition of what constitutes “meaningful human control” and create regulations in which that definition may be used. It looks forward to accomplishing this and more in committee, and has high hopes for the outcomes of this conference.

Works Cited

"Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction." <i>Int. Rev. Red Cross International Review of the Red Cross</i> 37.320 (1997): 563. Web. &lt;https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1997/09/19970918%2007-53%20AM/Ch_XXVI_05p.pdf&gt;.

Autonomous Weapons Systems: Technical, Military, Legal and Humanitarian Aspects (2014): International Committee of the Red Cross. Geneva, Switzerland 28 Mar. 2014.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Australia
Delegate Name: Spencer Miner
School: Kalamazoo Central High School

Another topic that has become increasingly important on the international stage is the usage of Autonomous Weapons Systems. The proliferation and usage of these weapons has become both useful and controversial. The usage of autonomous weapons has continued to spread in many countries and Australia is no exception. Autonomous weapons in the form of close-in weapons systems have been used in the Australian Navy to combat pirates and protect vessels that carry imports, exports, people, and other materials. These systems are remotely operated guns that can fire thousands of rounds per minute. Australia hopes to continue to use these weapons to save lives and money by keeping their soldiers and citizens out of danger.

However, Australia does not disagree with the United Nations that Autonomous Weapons Systems should be used in compliance with international law. As such, the Australian government will not condemn the usage of Autonomous Weapons Systems in accordance with international law. This topic will become more important as technology develops so appliance of international law to Autonomous Weapons Systems is necessary. The Australian government has and will continue to actively participate in United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) meetings on this issue.

The Australian government does agree that the proliferation of Autonomous Weapons systems should be limited to nations are part of then UN and countries that are not known to fund, or support terrorist organizations. Australia believes that autonomous weapons should be treated with the same attitude that we have towards nuclear weapons and our actions concerning Autonomous Weapons Systems should reflect as such.

Australia is eager to discuss how we can combine our ideas and present a solution for the proliferation and usage of Autonomous Weapons Systems.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Bahamas
Delegate Name: Cory Schantz
School: Mattawan High School

The Bahamas recognizes that Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) are a problem for all citizens of the world. With the advancement of technology, Autonomous Weapon Systems will become a greater problem as more countries develop powerful military drones, or UAVs. Problems have already occurred from the United States’ drones accidentally killing unarmed civilians. There has been concern about the ability for drones to recognize targets without any human judgement. There are many more problems questioning the legality and morality of AWS, however, since this technology is so new, there has not been great deal of discussion about the use of AWS. There have been actions taken by countries around the world individually, but there needs to be a resolution passed by the United Nations so every country can follow the same set of guidelines.

The Bahamian government has already taken steps to regulate the use of military drones in the Bahamas. With the debate going on in the United States about UAVs, the Bahamas decided to take action before UAVs could become a problem in the country. Therefore, the Bahamas is currently not experiencing any issues with UAVs.

Though, the Bahamas does not have problems with UAVs in the Bahamas, there needs to be regulations in place on UAVs and AWS to make sure the citizens of the world are safe. The reason the Bahamas government regulated UAVs in the Bahamas was to protect the safety of the people and that is what should be done in the United Nations by the world community.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Bahrain
Delegate Name: Sam Whitsell
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Autonomous weapons are fairly new to the world of war therefore the United Nations has not had much time to legislate their uses. The main point of focus that has to be addressed on the terms of Bahrain has to do with the United State’s military base located in Bahrain, because of said base most of Bahrain’s policies are parallel to those of the United States of America. This topic is important because of the moral questions fully autonomous weapons pose and the threat Israel poses if such is acquired. As the United States is Bahrain’s most powerful ally the people of Bahrain often side with the USA, especially in the case of autonomous weapons’ systems. Bahrain vocalized support for the use of tomahawk missiles in Syria mostly because almost all of their military support is directly through the United States. There is not a lot of official coverage of this topic due to the problems with families opposing the royal family in Bahrain and the conflicts that creates.

Autonomous weapons are not among the major concerns of Bahrain. The people of Bahrain have taken little to no action besides giving most of the military jurisdiction involving weapons to the United States. Internationally as stated before the policies fall curiously in line with those implemented by the USA. Prevalent statistics on the matter of autonomous weapons have not arisen in Bahrain as once again I emphasize the whole- hearted trust of the United States handling any and all things military.

In Bahrain our belief is that these weapons are the future and that their use is unavoidable. However popular they may be, there needs to be restrictions of their uses and country’s ability to make such weapons. These autonomous weapons are great as they save human lives on the side of the attacker however they are ruthless and lack empathy on the front of the attacked. In terms of changes we believe limits on such weapons should be implemented. Bahrain wishes for control of autonomous weapons but also a conscious and evolving limit on such extremely fatal weapons.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Belgium
Delegate Name: Chance Elliot
School: Grand Blanc High School

Autonomous weapon systems are weapon systems that can acquire and eliminate targets without human interaction once it is activated. Systems such as these are feared for reasons that are easy to comprehend. Humans possess a set of morals that help them determine right from wrong. Autonomous weapons remove the human element from the battlefield. Taking a Human from pulling a trigger and replacing them with a robot causes speculation as to whether the system can operate on a level of the human consensus. The main benefit of taking the human element from the battlefield is that the country does not have to worry about losing the life of the individual it replaced, the life of a human is worth more than the weapon system.

The country of Belgium has recognized that this is an issue that is becoming more and more relevant in the world today. Belgium understands that the technological advances that we experience bring us closer to a world where autonomous systems performing actions of warfare is normal. For this reason we believe that we should be having in depth conversations about the implications of autonomous systems.

Our country wishes to explore the topic in depth in all fields such as law, operational, and technical. We believe that broad participation is required to ensure the future safety of populations affected by autonomous weapons. We would also like to recognize the humanitarian implications of autonomous weapons and not constrict the conversation to systems purely designed to kill for offensive purposes.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Benin
Delegate Name: Isaiah Daik
School: Williamston High School

The topic of autonomous weapon systems has seen much talk and become something of a problem for the United Nations now. At the moment autonomous weapons are always being monitored to some degree by a human during its action, but the autonomous weapons of the future would have little to no human intervention during the weapons “critical function”. Now it’s the critical function aspect that worries many countries, as an autonomous weapon of the future would be able to use lethal force at will if deemed necessary. This is the problem we face, The U.N needs to decide what amount of human intervention is enough and a proper framework needs to be made to discuss what amount of human involvement is deemed adequate and safe.

Benin has interest on the subject of autonomous weapon systems due to the fact it’s becoming a global topic. Also, crime has flourished in Benin for over 50 years. These autonomous weapon systems could be used, but in a non-lethal way to deal with crime all over the country. The terrorist group Boko Haram is based in Nigeria and they could very easily make moves in Benin. Possibly these new weapons could a first line of defense for the country. On November 11 2013 delegates of Benin were sitting in at the Convention for Conventional Weapons (CCW) convention. They voted with France and many other countries against the creation and use of fully autonomous weapons at that point in time realizing the cons outweigh the pros. Now, the subject of autonomous weapon systems are a rising subject once again and Benin would like to see well-made rules and regulations for the use of autonomous weapons.

Benin would like to resolve this issue by working together with other countries to create a definition that clearly states the rules and regulations needed to have an autonomous weapon system, such as the amount of human intervention or the “critical functions” it’s allowed to perform on its own. We expect to find allies in countries that have funded their own autonomous weapon programs in the past such as China, Germany, Israel and more.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Brazil
Delegate Name: Sean Flikkema
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

The nation of Brazil believes that the ability to take a human being's life is reserved to human beings, not by lethal autonomous robots; therefore, the nation of Brazil believes it is not in the world's benefit to consider the proposal of permitting autonomous weapon systems.

Secondarily, The nation of Brazil believes that autonomous weapon systems can result in any of the following effects: the absence of the human ability to determine context and make decisions based on current situations, the possibility of such weapons to fall into the hands of any non-state actors, the uncertainties of the accountability for murders committed by such machines, but also the lowered number of human casualties in conflicts.

Furthermore, Brazil believes that it is necessary to highlight the fact that development of weapons such as autonomous weapon systems and other developmental weapon systems should be considered in the highest manner in the distinction between military and civilian targets and the importance of the power of taking lives and who, and in this case what as well, should exactly hold that power.

Finally, Brazil would like to notice the necessity to support a council on the matter of autonomous weapon systems in order to restrict or ban the use of specific types of weapons, such as lethal autonomous weapon systems, that may cause future unnecessary, unconventional, or unjustifiable casualties. Brazil also believes that CCW (The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) may be the desired council to discuss the desired filter on such weapons as autonomous weapon systems.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Burkina Faso
Delegate Name: Madeleine Grainger
School: Royal Oak High School

Autonomous Weapon Systems are a fast-growing technology, taking the world by storm, with their advanced technological systems that allow these weapons to act on their own essentially without human involvement. These Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS), more commonly known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or drones, have the ability to act on their own and make strategic decisions, they are a “hail mary” in the sense that the purchasing of one by a small, unstable nation would be cheaper in the long run, instead of bearing the costs of sending in troops to try and keep national and worldwide sovereignty.

Burkina Faso has endured multiple military coups shifting power from one leader to the next, and is currently engaged in the shifting of government powers, however, there are other concerns outside our nation’s walls and in our neighbors territories that pose global concern. We have Al-Qaeda as our neighbor to the East, in Mali; and Boko Haram to the West, in Niger, we are essentially surrounded by worldwide conflict, making us a key strategic area for the opportunity of disbanding two major terrorist organizations. Our former president Blaise Compaore had established a key relationship with the United States, in letting them use our airstrips to provide as a base to use drones as a way of keeping tabs on the Al-Qaeda region in Mali, in exchange in 2013 “U.S. assistance facilitated the establishment of a 1,000-person border security task force and the training and equipping of a military counter-terrorism unit,” but that is not where our dealings end. The U.S. has also provided millions of dollars in foreign financial aid that our country relies on, so are we to cut ties in the hopes of decreasing advancements of unmanned aerial vehicles that would pose a threat to international humanitarian law, due to the fact that AWS’s dont have the ability to make ethical decisions unlike humans which could cause a greater loss of life, or are we to keep strengthening ties with foreign allies, that have the ability to financially support our economy in a time of heavy instability?

Burkina Faso sees the difficulty in seeking who bears the legal blame of UAV’s, are AWS considered to be legal during the time of war and only within that time period is it okay to use the force of drones, or is it ethically acceptable to bomb a country with known sworn enemies of the state at anytime that nation sees fit? This could cause problems between foreign nations of drones unintentionally killing civilians due to flaws in the robotic systems of the AWS. While the world is on the fast track of building fully capable robotic systems, that could take place of humans in combat, this solves the problem of international humanitarian law in the sense that it will allow less loss of human life during war, the negative affects could be flaws causing undue damage, and are we to take the risk of robotics being able to consider changes in situations of war and conflict, and act accordingly?

Burkina Faso hopes to find solutions that will apply to small developing countries with limited budgets, unlike the wide range of resources the world superpowers have, we hope to resolute the controversy that drones pose to International Humanitarian Law, and find universal terms that will address the advancements in robotics technology and the use of robotic systems during war time situations.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: China
Delegate Name: Brooke Bacigal
School: Forest Hills Central High School

Machines, with varying degrees of artificial intelligence, and humans have coexisted for many years, yet the idea of robotic autonomy has recently engendered a multitude of concerns. Due in part to the fact that the rate at which automation advancement in systems is increasing, has accelerated dramatically across both militaries and the commercial sector, dictating the necessity for the immediate discussion of this topic. Some states and activist groups are pushing to ban any further development of these technologies whatsoever, but such a ban would impede on the potential for positive progress when forging the range of the technologically possible.

The People’s Republic of China believes that research into these possibilities should not be pre-emptively banned. This is an issue that demands greater vigilance to address the implications arising from existing and emerging weapons and their technologies. China is willing to comply by allowing transparency within weapons production and research, and also encourages other states pursuing the production of these weapons to follow this example in national research and development activities. Regarding the potential for developing a policy to govern autonomous weapons systems, China necessitates that work be done in a gradual and progressive manner in order to forge consensus. Generally speaking, China is open to the discussions of this issue under the framework of the Convention on Conventional Weapons. Given the complicated legal, humanitarian, and technical aspects, relevant study of the scope and key definitions are needed to formulate a viable protocol. Specifically the clarification of nascent terminology like true “autonomy”, and the idea of “meaningful human control.” Without determining these key definitions early on, no progress will likely ensue.

China stresses the importance of upholding the primacy and dignity of the human being, without limiting society’s scientific potential. And reiterates that the role of autonomy in the use of force is a complicated issue that merits further consideration and that key definitions are needed to conceptualize a future resolution.

Works Cited:

Autonomous Weapons Systems: Technical, Military, Legal and Humanitarian Aspects (2014): International Committee of the Red Cross. Geneva, Switzerland 28 Mar. 2014.

Framing Discussions on the Weaponization of Increasingly Autonomous Technologies. Geneva: UNIDIR. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2014.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: China
Delegate Name: Patrick Jarvis
School: Forest Hills Central High School

As technologies continue to develop, and the peoples of the world continue to employ their collective efforts toward improving the planet, a series of issues have arisen. New internet technologies offer new options for terrorism and danger. The western world maintains double standards with relation to development in the third world, giving lip-service to the specific needs of these countries, taking resources and giving next to nothing in return.

What the third world needs to develop successfully is not the scraps of food, the 25 cents a day, the Seahawks Superbowl Champs 2014 T-shirts. What the third world needs is real investment with the economic and security needs of each country in mind. The PRC has been consistently involved in this more productive model of development aid, that fosters growth and creates jobs in fragile areas of the globe.

This method of investment in key industries and infrastructure rather than simple and denigrating charity should be promoted on a global scale. This charitable activity is not a solution to poverty, but rather a supplement. Trade barriers should be lowered in order to promote trade and charitable donations should be examined for actual benefit to local economies and regulated accordingly. Long term economic growth should be prioritized, and expedited through economic and trade agreements, and additional measures should be implemented to protect foreign workers as they are critical to the success of major investment projects.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Colombia
Delegate Name: Shania Mason
School: Mattawan High School

Technological advances on unmanned systems in the last decade are leading the world into a new era of military conflict. The advancements are being made in the field of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), known more commonly as drones. These weapon systems reduce the risk of harming military personnel while providing more advanced function capabilities and reducing operation costs; however, they remain limited in the types of targets they can engage and pursue and in what context their use is appropriate. There is also question of whether or not combat drones will ever be able to distinguish between civilians and military personnel among other disputes. As with any new technology, precautions must be taken as countries explore autonomous weapons systems further and regulations applied before their usage poses a physical threat or brings ethical conflict to light. As countries study further the capabilities and uses of these machines we must make sure they do so in respect for humanitarian law.

Colombia is already addressing some of the disputes autonomous weapons and drones bring. In society, drone regulation laws are in place to insure that citizens operating drones do so in a responsible manner. Civilian drone users are also working to form the National Association of Drone Operators. As for militaristic uses, Colombia is a nation plagued with paramilitary groups and guerilla warfare and autonomous weapons have proven valuable in the surveillance and restraint of these groups. Currently, the majority of Colombia’s autonomous weapons power is put into internal issues of resisting drug trafficking and revolutionaries.

In the past, the United States has supplied Colombia with drones to repress guerilla groups and combat the war on drugs that entangles so much of Latin America. In turn, Colombia has supplied UAVs to Mexico, Haiti, Brazil, and Bolivia, and South Korea has also worked with Colombia to develop new AWS and UAV technology. Colombia hopes to work with other Latin American nations facing similar internal crises and with countries we have worked with previously on the subject of drones. Though, for the time being, Colombia’s militaristic uses for drones remains internal only, Colombia is looking to place regulations on militaristic drone use and development in regards to humanitarian law while also allowing countries the full benefits of unmanned systems. Colombia believes national sovereignty should be taken into account too since we have found many beneficial ways of controlling inner-state issues but are also aware that more concerns exist when multiple countries conflict that Colombia has not yet dealt with.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Congo
Delegate Name: Tyler Leavenworth
School: Forest Hills Central High School

Autonomous weapons are not in needed in the Congo. The Congo has no issues with weapons of that power nor do they have a desire to have them. The use of autonomous weapons proves to be exceptionally dangerous as well due the fact that no humans control them when they are in use. Situations can arise where an autonomous weapon can go rogue and attack the team it’s supposed to be representing. The use for autonomous weapons in the Congo would arise only if the Congo went to war with a country that was using autonomous weapons.

Weapons controlled by computers have shown to be beneficial to air and ground warfare. Every country would love to have their own deadly robots but the only problem is that they are extremely expensive. The cost for these weapons has been up to a billion dollars and they more than often end up not working. AWS are glorified by governments when in reality they may not even work. Is it right to support a form of warfare that we don’t even know how reliable it is? For now there is nothing to do and weight until someone can create a deadly killing machine that can protect itself while also attacking enemies. The need for one of these weapons systems is not fully there but when they make themselves heard and show an actual impact on modern warfare. For now governments will stick to people fighting there wars until they know they can have confidence in creating a functional AWS.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Croatia
Delegate Name: Peter Van Es
School: Mattawan High School

Croatia believes that Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) that can locate, pinpoint, and destroy targets without the supervision and execution by a human being should not be implemented in any form of warfare–present or future– and should be carefully and constantly monitored, not only to prevent infractions upon international laws, but also to prevent infractions upon morality. Croatia also believes the main focus of the committee should to establish laws on such weapons and to clarify when it is appropriate to implement such instruments.

These so called, “killer robots,” are mystifying and intriguing, due to the fact that they contain so much potential; not only potential for good, but potential for nefarious purposes as well. This type of technology is new and largely unknown. As such, AWS can be and should be regarded as dangerous. Croatia utilizes certain types of AWS such as UAVs to patrol our seas and borders; however, we do not tolerate the use of AWS to destroy targets without human supervision and execution. With the possible creation of such technology looming, Croatia believes that the committee must act quickly and decisively to prevent the unnecessary loss of human life.

Ultimately, Croatia believes that the passive use for this AWS technology, such as police force implementation, could be extremely beneficial. This technology can be used to catch criminals, survey and patrol areas requiring attention, and save lives. Croatia hopes that this committee will be able to come to a resolution regarding banning the disarmament of weapon systems not requiring the moderation of a human being, as well as being able to determine if AWS technology in general violates International Humanitarian Laws.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Cuba
Delegate Name: Benjamin Hedge
School: Royal Oak High School

Autonomous weapon systems are computer controlled weapons that act with little to no human supervision.This means that the choice of whether or not to take a human life is put in the hands of computers that don’t have the fundamental capability to make ethical decisions. The lack of human monitoring and the need to increase our understanding of if Artificial intelligence has the capability to make reliable and ethical decisions makes the need to more clearly define and discuss the Nature of autonomous weapon systems ever more apparent.

The responsibility of what is caused by the autonomous weapon system must be given to the nation that commissioned the autonomous weapon system, similar to any other maned operation that takes place. If an airspace is entered by an unmanned aircraft it should have the same legal repercussions as a manned aircraft.

The use of Autonomous weapon systems is premature at this time. The necessity to more clearly define if an Artificial intelligence can make true ethical decisions is something the international community must do. It is ethically wrong to allow the use of these weapons to continue if we have not gotten a better idea of how the Autonomous weapon systems will develop in the future. So we say that for the foreseeable future we are in favor of halting the use of all Autonomous weapons do to the general need to gain an understanding of how we can expect this technology to be implemented in the future and the morally ambiguous nature of giving the choice to take a human life to an artificial intelligence.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Denmark
Delegate Name: Madison Petersen
School: Vicksburg High School

Denmark would like to recognize that on the topic of the Autonomous Weapon Systems countries must look into the future and speculate possibilities that may arise. Autonomous Weapon Systems are fairly new and we are unaware of their full potential. Denmark would like to ask countries to keep this in mind when the topic is discussed.

Presently, the use and development of Autonomous Weapon Systems is being regulated and checked by international humanitarian law. However, how do we regulate something that isn't fully understood? This question is one that Denmark and the other nations of the UN will have to work to answer. Also, how will the regulations of Autonomous Weapon systems hold up against the possible creation of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems?

Although no Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems have been developed, Denmark does not doubt that with the current rapidly growing technological developments Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems are a near-future possibility. Denmark would like to see these possibilities mentioned and discussed in committee due to the implications they may hold in the world's future.

Although we cannot fully know what Autonomous Weapon Systems will be capable of, we can work to make them a productive yet safe tool of society. Regulations should be discussed on how to protect the national sovereignty of countries and the privacy of citizens within countries. Denmark believes that together, the UN has the ability to make the appropriate use of Autonomous Weapon Systems clear to every nation.

Denmark believes that discussion on Autonomous Weapon Systems should comply with international humanitarian law, and be guided by the fact that all use of force must remain under "meaningful human control". Denmark hopes that we can play a productive role in making the approved use of Autonomous Weapon Systems clear and efficient for each and every nation.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Djibouti
Delegate Name: Sophie Miner
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

The autonomous weapon system is “a weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator.” These forms of warfare are advancing the world and have many positives. Therefore, remote control warfare should not be banned because it is safer method of flying and people are not dying if they crash or get hit.

Djibouti is a small country in North Africa that hosts other major countries remote centers to control Autonomous Weapon Systems. As of May 2014, the United States has held a base for counter terrorism and drone strike operations in Djibouti. Because of the fact that Djibouti stations many control centers for Autonomous Weapon Systems, Djibouti is against the fact that the United Nations want to ban the use of them because the control centers are a major source of income for the country and hosting these centers comes with deals of protection.

Djibouti believes that sovereign states should be able to make their own decision on the use of these drones, and in addition, these countries that choose to use them must hold the understanding that their military leaders shall be held liable for the deaths of the innocent. Therefore, Djibouti believes that the United Nations should stop debating about autonomous weapon systems and leave it alone because of the benefits they have on the world and because when something does go wrong, people will be held accountable, even tho the UN believes there will not be.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Egypt
Delegate Name: Ethan Simon
School: Grand Blanc High School

Presently, Autonomous Weapon Systems are being used in greater quantities by countries with the resources and technology to develop them. In the past decade they have gained a greater prominence among the the militaries of the world as they become more advanced. More developed countries tend to use a greater amount of them, compared to countries with smaller or less well-equipped militaries. The most common form of autonomous weapon systems are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Controversy has arisen over the fact that the human element has been taken out of this portion of warfare. There is concern over the lack of proficiency in qualitative data analysis that limits the decision making capabilities of the AWS. It is imperative to discuss and reach a decision on this issue in order to set a precedent for future generations.

Egypt is not opposed to the use of drones in warfare, as they provide excellent tools for the combating of terrorist organizations, and believes that these advances in technology should be explored in a more complete state. We have used these weapon platforms to combat the growing problem of insurgency in the region. While Egypt does support the use of drones in warfare, we believe that a cautious approach should be taken in regards to the development and use of these weapons. They are a versatile tool that allows for a more aggressive strategy when combating insurgents and terrorist cells in remote regions. There are also a number of not-lethal UAVs in use by the Egyptian military at this time that provide surveillance and information gathering services.

Egypt proposes that the development of automated weapon systems be explored more thoroughly in order for regulations and laws to more firmly govern the use and development of such technology. The better understanding of the capabilities of these systems is imperative to the responsible use of them, as well as any possible advancements made in that field. These technologies currently being developed are an important step forward in the battle against insurgents and terrorists waging war on countries around the world.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Estonia
Delegate Name: Michael Younce
School: Flint Southwestern Classical Academy

Autonomous Weapons Systems are generally defined as weapon systems that engage in combat by acquiring, tracking, selecting, and attacking targets with minimal human operation. Autonomous Weapons Systems are highly constricted in the tasks that they can perform, targets they are allowed to attack, and contexts in which they can be used. Due to lack of regulation, a debate is going on about the legality and morality of the use of Autonomous Weapons Systems.

We as Estonia, a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), agree with our other members of NATO, the United States of America and the United Kingdom in that Autonomous Weapons Systems should always be used in a responsible and lawful manner, under human control. This helps to answer the question as to: “Who do you hold responsible for a violation of International Humanitarian Law?”

Since the machine will need to be operated by a human, the operator will be the one held responsible for any violations. Not only will the human operating the machine itself be held accountable, but so will the members in his Chain of Command. How they will be held accountable is to be left up to the state in which the violation occurs.

Violations of International Humanitarian law could potentially include: Use on heavily populated areas, hospitals, schools, and places that could result in civilian casualties and/or collateral damage.

In the International Humanitarian Law, there is no specific rule for Autonomous Weapons Systems. The law says that the states must decide the use of any weapon or method of warfare that it develops or acquires would be prohibited by International Humanitarian Law.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: France
Delegate Name: Celine Rajoulh
School: Saginaw Arts and Sciences Academy

Autonomous weapon systems have been a constant source of debate due to military implications in using these devices. Drones, popular forms of autonomous weapons systems, are commonly used to attack certain regions from a distance. The benefits of AWS include reduced operational costs, reduced risks to the armed forces, and increased capabilities on the battlefield.

While there are numerous benefits to using autonomous weapons systems in the military, France would just like to stress the importance of meaningful human control over targeting and attack decisions. Our concept is based on the full responsibility of military and political leaders in the decision to use armed force. France believes that the role of human beings in the decision to open fire must be preserved. The prospect of future autonomous weapons systems being developed to open fire without any human control raises several complex technological, legal, military, and ethical concerns. As the former French defense minister Hervé Morin stated, “The act of war, which consists in delivering death, must involve a substantial human responsibility, both politically and in the various levels of the military chain of command. It must be controlled and mastered by humans. For ethical and operational reasons, human conscience cannot be taken out of the equation.”

If semi-autonomous weapons systems are to be allowed on the battlefield, France believes that certain measures should be established so unmitigated disasters do not occur. In order to create guidelines that are effective, extensive dialogue must transpire in order to answer key questions. Who will be assigned responsibility or accountability for these systems, and what consequences should be put in place in the case of accidental casualties? Will these autonomous weapons systems require permission to enter the airspace of another country, and if so, under what circumstances? France anticipates those questions to be key sources of debate amongst other countries.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Germany
Delegate Name: River Wahl
School: Forest Hills Central High School

Germany’s position on the matter of lethal autonomous weapons systems is sound. We will not allow for the decision to take any form of life be delegated to a machine without human intervention. The taking of life and the decision to use force, should not be given to such machines.

Technology is advancing in unforeseen ways, and we recognize that this makes it somewhat difficult to address the situation entirely, as there is not an easy judgment of the risks and benefits of technological developments in general. Because of that, we are open to discussion regarding this matter; However, we will remain vigilant, as the red line leading to autonomous weapons systems making the decision to take life without any kind of human intervention or verification should not be crossed.

We also believe that we should work together with the international community to ensure that rules and regulations in line with humanitarian laws be created. As a leader in the robotics industry, Germany will be working closely with other nations to determine these regulations and what they can do to ensure the safety of all. For example, perhaps strict guidelines for engaging targets with the assistance of autonomous weapon systems should be put in place.

Furthermore, we understand that the unconditional respect for international humanitarian law be the main pillar from which we lean on for these discussions. Germany is ready to begin discussion regarding the matters of autonomous weapon systems, their development, and the rules regarding these.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Greece
Delegate Name: Alison Albrecht
School: Roeper School

The use of autonomous weapon systems raises great concerns regarding this new, emerging, form of combat. Even if these drones are fully developed, reliable, and precise as technology progresses, Greece feels that there are still problems with the use of these weapon systems.

Giving a machine the power to decide between life or death is a major ethical concern for Greece, strongly believing that this duty and responsibility should only be in the hands of humans. Greece is also worried in the machine’s capability to distinguish between a civilian and a target, killing innocent human lives. This is too large of a task for any autonomous weapon, and therefore must be investigated if these systems are implemented.

There is also an issue regarding the lack of policies set in place for the actions of the drones. Since autonomous weaponry is an imminent technology, strong regulations have yet to be solidified. This poses as a risk for messy legal issues and conflicts surrounding the actions of the drones that Greece does not want to get involved in. As of now, autonomous weaponry need to be monitored and regulated much more before Greece can feel confident in these machines.

Autonomous weapon systems display far too many risks to be a positive force during combat. Greece believes that the human brain can never be dominated by that of a machine, therefore implementing this technology is a risk Greece is not willing to take.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Haiti
Delegate Name: Mahah Naveed
School: Saginaw Arts and Sciences Academy

It is Haiti's view that the main issue with autonomous weapons system is the misuse of such weapons, and the targeting system of autonomous weapons. Autonomous weapons in the possession of irresponsible parties or in the possession of people who do not intend to use them for the good of humanity, are a dangerous thing. Such weapons can be given questionable orders, and they will complete their assigned tasks without questioning the morals of such tasks. Also, if autonomous weapons were told to target dangerous people, how would they know who has ill intent and who is an innocent civilian? Even if an AI were given a program that could distinguish a dangerous person from a civilian, that program may not always be accurate, and mistakes by autonomous weapon systems could result in the death of an innocent.

The committee should find ways to regulate the targeting system of an autonomous weapon. The committee should also find a way to regulate the creation and use autonomous weapons, so that they cannot be used by people with ill intentions. One way the targeting system of autonomous weapons can be regulated is that they could be designed to require a human operator's permission before engaging with a person. This would prevent an AI from attacking innocent civilians because their program identified them as dangerous individuals. There should also be a system or a group of people that determines which things autonomous should and should not be used for. Such a system could prevent autonomous weapons from being used for the wrong reasons. Other countries are moving to ban fully autonomous weapons that don't receive human input before attacking humans. These countries include the United States.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: India
Delegate Name: Natascia Leonardi
School: Roeper School

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.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Iran
Delegate Name: Kara Hamann
School: Kalamazoo Central High School

Iran is in full support in the use of autonomous weapons. Iran uses those weapons in everyday life and we do not support anyone trying to put restrictions on us. We haven't signed the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and we do not plan on signing it or anything similar to it. We do not agree with prohibiting or restricting the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects. It is our country and our weapons and we will. Iran request free will to deal with our weapons as we deem necessary. Iran does not request any help from outside nations. We use our autonomous weapons to survey our land and assistance to our government. There has been no actual proof that Iran is using these autonomous weapons to harm anyone in our country or neighboring countries. Iran refuses to sign onto anything that would have other countries invading ours to put laws on our autonomous weapons. The delegation of I ran realizes that this paper is very repetitive but there is nothing for the delegation to express. We do not want help, we do not want laws or sanctions. We wish to be left alone. And what we do with our autonomous weapons is our business. Iran refuses to sign a treaty that takes away our power and our weapons. Iran is in support of the use on autonomous weaponry. We will not be convinced by anybody and stand by to support anyone who agrees with us on the topic of autonomous weapons.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Iraq
Delegate Name: Ryan Claypool
School: Williamston High School

For the past 20 years militaries of certain nations have grown by strength in number, but also by the numbers of “fire-power”. Countries all over the world have access or the resources to create and build their own guns, tanks, and jets. They also have the power to create weapons they can control themselves to fight the battles for them. In the beginning of 1990s the U.S. began to use unmanned predator drones to fly over areas and gather intel, spy, and coordinate mainly in the middle east. After 9/11, many nations began to arm their drones which carry out military strikes against certain enemies. Even after invention of the drones, the United States and European countries began to create autonomous weapon systems. These autonomous weapon systems are very advanced even though they are not mainly used in militaries yet. They are made to help military forces and possibly fight our battles in the future. They are being debated upon concerns under the principles of humanity and the International Humanitarian Law. The ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) has stated to CCW, (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) that they do not propose a ban on autonomous weapon systems. For the purpose for other nations to use autonomous weapon systems in future wars.

Iraq sees autonomous weapon systems as a possibility for their own military in efforts to fight off terrorist organizations. Iraq is reliable to use autonomous weapon systems under international humanitarian law. The Iraqi government knows its allies will more than likely not intervene with Iraq in the hopes of fighting off Islamic extremist groups. Their military is weak and outnumbered, and is the need of technological aid. Iraq believes that CCW should take responsibility for any use of AWS, but so should the government of that nation who uses autonomous weapon systems for the wrong purposes, such as acts of genocide. Negotiations should be open to those of a country’s allies who are willing to trade AWS for the purpose of military advancements.

The United Nations should be directly involved with nations that are in the use of autonomous weapon systems. Countries that can’t be trusted will abuse the power of the UN and possibly interfere with other nations sovereignty. Warfare with autonomous weapon systems can end in deadly situations and possibly create international conflicts. There must be a resolution that allows certain countries to obtain autonomous weapon systems for advantage of their military, but that will also regulate the use of autonomous weapon systems in modern warfare. Other countries should be allowed to trade autonomous weapon systems with allied countries, or neighboring countries. Countries like North Korea or Iran shouldn't be able to obtain autonomous weapons systems; they should be put in the same weapons category for chemical and biological weapons for the fear they could cause the same amount of destruction when used. When a country decides to abuse the power of autonomous weapon systems, a UN court committee should trail the nation in charge for it’s wrong doing with autonomous weapon systems. They should be able to take away their weapons system and sentence politicians and military officials to jail when held accountable in that nation. A trail in their own nation would not be fair if another nation is involved with the destruction of autonomous weapon systems.

Work Cited

“Losing Humanity. The Case against Killer Robots” N.D. 19 Nov 2012. Web. 4 Nov 2015.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/11/19/losing-humanity/case-against-killer-robots

“Killer Robots: Why The World Should Ban Autonomous Weapon Systems” N.D. 28 Nov 2014. Web. 4 Nov 2015.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/11/28/killer-robots-why-world-should-ban-autonomous-weapons-systems

“U.N. Conference Debating a Ban on Autonomous Weapons: Understanding Key Issues” N.D. 16 April 2014. Web. 4 Nov 2015.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/un-conference-debating-a-ban-on-autonomous-weapons-understanding-key-issues

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Italy
Delegate Name: Sydney Connors
School: Royal Oak High School

Is it morally acceptable for a machine with no human influence to make life and death decisions? Autonomous weapon systems (AWS), commonly referred to as ‘killer-robots’, are weapons that can select and fire upon targets with no human intervention. These weapons are being developed, as well as in use by militaries internationally.

There is a great deal of discomfort with the ethicality of any weapon that places the use of lethal force beyond human control. It is undisputed among international States, including Italy, that autonomous weapons must be used in accordance with International Humanitarian Laws (IHL). It is urgent that the States consider the legality of autonomous weapons as well as the ethicality of these systems. Furthermore, States that have deployed AWS are encouraged to share their experiences regarding how they ensure IHL is being followed when using these weapons.

Italy, along with other States, agreed to attend a conference set by India to discuss this issue. The Italian state considers it necessary that the humanitarian concerns posed by these existing weapons are addressed. They deem it appropriate and vital that the international community begins to evaluate the impacts of existing weapons as well as the possible impacts of future developments of these weapon systems. Italy was also in attendance to a conference in Geneva, Switzerland in 2014. The purpose of the convention was to take preemptive action to ban autonomous weapons that can cause unjustifiable suffering in combat or affect civilians. The Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs has also publicly urged the European Union, CCW as well as parliamentarians and senators to address the issue of AWS. She calls for a ban against all Autonomous Weapons.

Automatic Weapons Systems are a complicated issue. This discussion is expected to become more in depth and broaden as the issue is explored in further conversation. The hope is that there is agreement to pursue a ban of these weapon systems and their development.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Japan
Delegate Name: Will Gadbois
School: East Grand Rapids High School

The great nation of Japan has been known for years as the forefront for technological advancements. From restaurants that are waited completely by robotic waiters to a better way to create nuclear energy, Japan has always been a serious influence in both domestic and military technology. With Japan’s military being one of the best in the world we have access to some of the most powerful weapons, which include AWS.

Since both North Korea and China being extremely close to Japan and are extreme threats to our country, we are in desperate need to invest in an AWS program to be able to detect whether or not our nation is in danger of either of these nations. Since the summer of 2014 the Japanese military has invested over 372 million USD into a previously non-existent UAV and military drone program. We have the globe’s fastest growing UAV program and we are required to do this because with our geographic location we need to ensure protection to all our citizens by watching over the seas and airspace surrounding our beloved islands.

When the special committee congregated in Geneva, Switzerland in April of 2015 many countries were arguing the danger that AWS pose in our world, however, delegates from Japan stated that they will oppose any ban on “dual-use” components of AWS. We argued that all AWS are “dual-use” because the weapons can be operated by civilians and the CCW can’t simply ban one aspect of AWS because it wouldn’t be able to work with only one core component to it. AWS are already regulated by the International Humanitarian Law, so there is no more need to regulate AWS and if we were several technologically advanced countries will not be able to protect their homeland even close to as well as they would be with AWS.

Japan believes that it is the decision and available technology of that nation to research and create AWS. Such weapons allow technologically advanced countries to protect their nations land more effectively than if they were limited to the navy and/or army. For the nation of Japan, AWS are necessary to maintain peace and stability within our great country.

Works Cited

"Killer Robots: The Future of War? – CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

"How Japan Fell in Love With America's Drones." Defense One. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Jordan
Delegate Name: Jordyn Wexler
School: Roeper School

Jordan is excited to debate on the topic of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS). As a nation with a strong military program, we believe that the exploration of AWS are important in creating safer environments for civilians in war stricken areas, but must be used strategically in order to prevent having an opposite effect.

Currently, there are no true AWS in place. However, the use of drones is a reality. Drones operate automatically, by first having the target selected by a human. The human eye is important to be able to assess a situation before accidently firing on a civilian. If AWS were fully enacted, without the use of human judgment, the outcome could be grave. A human is needed to assess variability of an operation for civilians or anything out of the ordinary before firing a weapon. Additionally, this human is away from the actual operation, causing less conflict and more calculative actions. In 2012 the number of UN drones in Afghanistan in increased 72 percent and civilian causalities decreased 42 percent. Without the need of manned operations, the soldier is less likely to be swept up in the heat of the moment and can calculate threats with greater ease, saving the lives of civilians who could otherwise be deemed a threat in the moment if the soldier feels threatened. With the exploration of AWS there is a possibility of even fewer casualties if there can come a point where technological judgment surpasses human judgment. An AWS could potentially be able to differentiate between a civilian holding a rake versus a man with a rifle. This is a situation that a human may not even be able to interpret precisely because their eyes could deceive them, while the technology may not be able to be deceived. However, the method by which these weapons are operated is crucial. If someone does not understand a machine in its entirety it could do something unintended. With such a weapon acting autonomously and if a casualty does occur, blame can be misguided because one may not know weather the casualty was the fault of the weapon or the soldier. Without a secure fault to the soldier their morality in combination with AWS can be questioned because they may not feel the weight of their actions as much as if they were in the field. If the potential of AWS are met, then they could save countless civilian lives. Jordan believes that further explorations of these technologies are crucial in safe guarding civilians.

Through the proper use of AWS, lives can be saved which would have otherwise been taken in manned operations. In order to prevent from using an AWS’s power to inflict unnecessary violence there cannot be any malfunctions. Its environment must not affect its usage, there cannot be any technological errors, and the person in charge of operating weapon must be thoroughly knowledgeable to how the AWS works. Without extreme examination of every factor that goes into making a machine it isn’t always possible to pin point the culprit of the machine’s error. There needs to be a culprit in order to ensure that there is a specific blame so that an operator isn’t more inclined to abuse the proper of an AWS because they feel they aren’t likely to get caught. With this said, we believe there must be a criteria met by the machine before it can be put into action, as well as criteria met by the person in control in order to create more clarity towards where the fault goes if an error does arise.

Jordan believes that with proper usage of AWS the safety of civilians in war stricken areas as well as the lives of those who would otherwise be manning an operation would increase. However, we feel strongly that certain regulations must be enacted on AWS in order to ensure the safest possible outcome.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Kazakhstan
Delegate Name: Gabe Guimond
School: Mattawan High School

Kazakhstan strongly believes in the continued research and development of autonomous weapon systems (AWS). To understand Kazakhstan’s decision, one must develop a better idea of the nation as a whole. To commence, Kazakhstan was the last soviet republic to declare independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Since then, President Nursultan Nazarbayev has led the new founded country to peace and prosperity in Central Asia. Regarding foreign policy, Kazakhstan maintains strong diplomatic relations with Russia, China, and the U.S.A. On the issue of terrorism, Kazakhstan has assisted the U.S.A with the war on terror and is an active member of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, having chaired the board in 2010. In short, Kazakhstan is a country that is highly against terrorism, supports Russia, China, and the U.S.A.

Autonomous weapons have the potential to save millions of lives. They replace people in combat. Idealy, in the future, drones would be on the frontline, not people. For now, Kazakhstan believes drones could greatly benefit the fight against terrorism. AWS have proven to be highly effective when eliminating terrorists, and if autonomous weapons become more advanced, they have the power to wipe out major terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. AWS could also be used in relief efforts for countries in need. Drones could supply refugees, the ill, and those suffering from natural disasters with care packages. Autonomous weapons could greatly benefit mankind if handled properly. Of course, there are major repercussions to AWS. People fear that the weapons’ artificial intelligence could at some point, surpass human intelligence, becoming a threat to humanity. Invasion of airspace and morality have also been problems that need to be addressed. The benefits of autonomous weapons greatly outweigh the possible risks, and for that reason, Kazakhstan strongly believes in the advancement of AWS.

To solve these technicalities, Kazakhstan proposes the creation of an international committee dedicated to finding the balance between autonomous weapons, politics, and morality. The production of Autonomous weapons will be supervised and strict standards will be set to ensure that the weapons don’t get too advanced. Meaning that autonomous weapons won’t be totally independent from human guidance. A law will be created requiring that countries need to have permission to fly drones through another country’s airspace. For countries that don’t comply with these conditions, the allowance of AWS research and development will be taken away, or be severely limited. Autonomous weapons will be required to aid in relief efforts as well. As way to ensure safety, this board will also decide the quantities of the ambiguous weapons given to approved countries. Countries known for supporting or turning a blind eye to terrorism, or having a violent track record themselves, will not seize much of these highly effective weapons. Ultimately, this global group decides the fate of autonomous weapons, and Kazakhstan respects that. Kazakhstan is a country wants international diplomacy, and sees the advancement of AWS making that goal a reality.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Kenya
Delegate Name: Meagan Schlaf
School: Roeper School

Recent advancements in robotic technology have led to exploration of new military machinery, in the form of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS). Kenya recognizes the potential benefit of these systems, including increased operational capabilities, minimized risk to the operator, and reduced operational cost. However, Kenya believes the technology is inherently risky.

First, we would like to voice ethical concerns regarding the use of AWS. Kenya is wary of allowing drones to independently select and attack human targets. We feel that it is impossible to guarantee that the technology is capable of doing so in a safe manner, and likely never will be. The selection and attack of targets must remain ultimately in human hands. The risk associated with autonomous drones far outweighs the resources their use would save.

Kenya is additionally concerned about the impact of AWS on smaller nations. The United States is currently the most abundant source of AWS and it seems viable that only larger countries would be more apt acquire such technology. We are worried that this new technology would create a new international dynamic, rendering many smaller nations disadvantaged and insignificant in the global community.

Furthermore, Kenya is concerned by the lack of policies in place to govern use of AWS. We understand that is the main issue being discussed, and would like to reiterate the importance of establishing such policies. AWS technology is growing exponentially and could become quite dangerous quite quickly. Without legal boundaries, nations are free to use this technology as they please. Kenya would like clear limitations on how far nations are allowed to explore this technology and assurance that this technology will not become militarily omnipotent.

As far as concerns about national sovereignty, we believe drones should be treated in the same manner as all other aircraft: permission is needed to cross into another nation’s airspace. This will also assist in managing the extent to which AWS can be used.

Overall Kenya is opposed to extensive development or use of AWS, but realizes that complete elimination of these systems is impractical. Rather, it is imperative to develop strict restrictions for AWS. Kenya is pleased by the opportunity to consider such restrictions in committee and looks forward to fostering international cooperation on the matter.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Kuwait
Delegate Name: Howard Henderson
School: Fishers High School

The State of Kuwait, having experienced foreign occupation during the Gulf War, and being a country of limited geography, is of the opinion that the research and development of automated weapon systems (AWS) should be allowed to continue, especially in the realm of surveillance as opposed to lethal action. The State of Kuwait believes that the preservation of human life is of the utmost importance, and that any unnecessary loss of life represents a severe failure of conscience. In the past, the people of Kuwait have dealt with horrible acts of torture and murder at the hands of invading soldiers, and believe that the use of AWS can prevent such unnecessary acts of violence, assuming they are not constructed for the use of terrorism.

Kuwait recognizes that many countries may oppose the development of AWS for fear of indiscriminate “killing machines”, but it believes that further development on such weapons should be allowed to take place before final regulations are put into place. There may be as of yet unforeseen benefits to the automation of soldiers, and urges the other member states of the UN to consider such extenuating factors. At current, the world has not yet experienced AWS programmed to run entirely autonomously and kill by their own discretion, and so the State of Kuwait would like to focus debate on which areas of AWS should there be allowed research to take place. There is potential for an arms race in automated weapons systems, and Disarmament and International Security Committee has been charged with making sure that ethical considerations are taken into account before this occurs.

Moving forward, the State of Kuwait reminds the Committee that human life is precious, and that any technology that could be used in order to prevent casualties is something worth investment. Kuwait looks forward to the eventual use of autonomous technologies for this purpose, especially in the area of surveillance. Although it believes the use of AWS as lethal weapons should also be investigated, it will not endorse their use until significantly more research has taken place. This technology could potentially change the face of warfare forever, and perhaps one day armed conflict will take place entirely without the direct influence of human soldiers. In regards to International Humanitarian Law, its self-proclaimed intention is to be “a set of rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict.” AWS have the potential to represent a major step in the right direction when it comes to saving lives.

Works Cited:

"Hopes Rise For U.S. UAV sales to Middle East." Hopes Rise for U.S. UAV Sales to Middle East (n.d.): n. pag. Aerospace America. Web. 1 Nov. 2015. <Hopes rise for U.S. UAV sales to Middle East>.

"War & Law." International Committee of the Red Cross. N.p., 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 04 Nov. 2015.

"War Profile – Iraq/US." (n.d.): n. pag. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Libya
Delegate Name: Michelle Svilpe
School: Mattawan High School

Autonomous weapons are clearly defined as being “killer robots” due to their lack of need for human control or interaction after being activated. Although these weapons have devastating results, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya hasn’t had much experience with the science behind drones. Even with a lack of knowledge, Libya recognizes the potential dangers these weapons could produce.

After efforts towards gaining Weapons of Mass Destruction in Libya were ceased, the nation does not have much experience with weapons of this caliber, other than the various weapons possessed by the terrorist groups in the country. Libya has cooperated in many instances when questions arose about nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and Libya is still interested in continuing its cooperation efforts. Libya has been struggling with civil unrest for several years, and hasn’t become familiar with the implication of autonomous weapons. While dealing with civil wars and multiple militia and terrorist groups, Libya has been focusing mainly on rebuilding the government and combatting the several groups attempting to take power of the country.

There are many concerns to be considered with the implication of AWS in Libya and other countries. With recent attempts to reconstruct Libya’s government, the nation has made an effort towards stopping violations of international humanitarian law, and sees autonomous weapons as a means of only furthering these violations. Libya is already struggling with humanitarian issues, and does not wish to further these and create more problems. Also, Libya is concerned with the possibility of terrorist groups coming in contact with this technology because of their presence rapidly increasing in the country. Based on the knowledge of the dangers, they potentially create a much worse situation for Libya than would be welcomed. Libya has been the victim of several drone strikes over the years, endangering the innocent people. Libya views these weapons as a clear danger to citizens because they are unable to always target the right subjects. The drones are typically an unreliable resource, and Libya would like to discontinue the use in order to protect the people of the country. To Libya, safety is the biggest concern, and AWS are seen as more of threats than a benefit.

Libya believes that several questions need to be answered relating to the use of AWS and who is going to posses them. Both benefits and dangers must be considered for nations to come to any form of agreement on this topic. Libya suggests that the committee works together to create a base of knowledge regarding AWS and then proceed with decisions on the implication. Libya is open to discussion on the topic and is looking forward to communicating with delegates to discover solutions.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Lithuania
Delegate Name: Andres Maldonado Solís
School: Instituto Educativo Olinca

Up until today, there is no international agreed definition to what the term autonomous weapons systems mean. They have existed since technology has permitted us to control a machine without being inside of it, or even nearby it. This tells us that we have known what autonomous weapon systems are. Nevertheless, no organization has decided to define what they are in a global context.

Current situation:

Although Lithuania does not find itself in a state of crisis, this country believes there are ethics to the use of these machines. Until which point is humanity going to let “robots” do the task of a human being? The uses of these machines in crises zones is very delicate, these machines should be regulated carefully.

Lithuania possesses UAVs, but refuses to use them for purposes that involve violence or putting in danger civilians and people that are not involved in the militia This country’s position in this topic is against, but willing to negotiate. Lithuania is open to hear proposals about how to regulate these machines. The position the country has taken is because these machines are not supposed to have “a mind of their own”.

Lithuania thinks that these systems could be useful only for protection. They need to be designed to save lives, not to take away more lives. Machines like these have the structure to do so much more rather than doing damage.

Also, Lithuania is worried about the proliferation of autonomous weapon systems, specially unmanned aerial vehicles. Lithuania thinks these vehicles should only be used to patrol each country’s territory for its own protection.

Possible solutions:

Lithuania proposes a reinforcement of the International Humanitarian Law emphasizing the urge of adding the autonomous weapon systems in the restrictions of use or the creation of a protocol that states how these systems must work. In addition, Lithuania suggests all counties to punish those ones who abuse of autonomous weapon systems. There should be also a study on how robotics influence military forces nowadays and if robotics are something necessary in the militia.

Bibliography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/uk-opposes-international-ban-on-developing-killer-robots

https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofweapons/

http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KRC_CountryStatus_14Mar2014.pdf

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/what_is_ihl.pdf

http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/CSSAnalyse164-EN.pdf

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Nepal
Delegate Name: Karthik Vuyyuru
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Autonomous Weapon Systems have been emerging into the scene in the past decade. Instead of being controlled out of a drone base, autonomous weapons are programmed to make decisions by themselves. Think of it as an autopilot system. Autonomous Weapon Systems may be the next step in warfare, but there are many risks. Many developed nations are starting to implement with this technology. Many of these countries want to continue this type of research in their future. Some of the risks could include unintentional bombings or attacks on places and an accidental start to a war. It is also tough to test the ownership of an Autonomous Weapon Systems because a country could claim that the drone made its decision to fly into another country’s airspace. These ownership issues could cause tensions against countries and could boil to war. Many developed countries are exploring the uses of AWS and are starting to test them in developing countries. AWS can be very harmful if used in warfare, but for now they are still being developed and tested.

Nepal does not have a direct impact on the development of AWS. Nepal’s relationship with China seems to be growing. Nepal has recently started to rely more on China for supplies such as oil and money mainly because of India cutting off supplies. Therefore, Nepal supports China’s opinion on many points, even though Nepal has its own opinions as well. Nepal also supports their opinion about autonomous weapons. Nepal agrees China that although AWS can be dangerous, there still needs to be further research done on the topic. Right now, Nepal supports the advancement and research of Autonomous Weapon Systems. Nepal and China both believe that the rights of human life should be protected and not be taken away by an AWS that accidently bombs a civilian area. Both countries are keen to have more discussion of AWS in the future.

Nepal does not have the economy to produce autonomous weapons itself, but China or other countries could use Nepal as a base for Autonomous Weapon testing in the future. Weapon testing in Nepal could make its economy grow dramatically in the future and could also make Nepal a leading nation when concerning the manufacturing of AWS. Nepal, right now, is going along with China’s position that AWS are a topic that should be researched, but using them does not seem right for warfare purposes because they can be very harmful to peaceful people. Nepal calls for an involvement in AWS in the future, but for now there are more important problems in Nepal such as an oil crisis.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: New Zealand
Delegate Name: Courtney Larson
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

With advancing technology, it is now possible to eliminate the human element from war. Fully Autonomous Weapon Systems decide to fire without any command or instruction from people besides the coding and instructions programmed into the drone. Eliminating the human factor is dangerous for not only military personnel, but civilians as well. Currently, only autonomous weapon systems are being used as Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles, but if allowed to expand, particularly to land combat, the potential catastrophes are massive and lethal. Not only is there great danger in potential error within the computer, but the systems and drones could allow for wars without knowing who the enemy is. Fully autonomous drones have no need for any sort of communication with the country responsible for their existence after their launch. This allows for anonymous strikes. The stricken country would have minimal to no clue as to who attacked them. The people responsible could be on the other side of the globe. The very concept of that type of war is appealing to multiple nations. However, the autonomous weapons systems could lead to strikes, that could be aimed at civilian targets by any number of people or groups within or out of any government, that could lead to the deaths of masses of innocent civilians. Imagine if governments allowed this technology and it were to fall into the wrong hands, hands of those who do not care whether the people they are killing our civilians of our nations. This technology must be banned and eradicated before an accident can happen, as I'm positive it will. Nothing good can come from developing this technology and removing all oversight and control humans have over its ability to destroy.

Autonomous Weapon Systems are shrouded in uncertainty on whether or not they could detect targets that do not don uniforms. It could cause potential mass casualties for civilians, which concern International Human Rights laws in warfare. Due to this, New Zealand has taken a position to ban these weapons, as stated in the previous General Assembly Meeting on October 30, 2013. New Zealand is concerned with the risk of civilian safety that is threatened with the creation with these weapons. As stands, New Zealand will abide with the Human Rights laws in warfare. However, New Zealand has not taken affirmative action to ban Autonomous Weapon Systems. Within the government, we are reviewing our options to put forth a resolution.

As stated, the question is whether Autonomous Weapons are allowed under International Humanitarian Law. The General Assembly should come to a decision of whether or not these weapons break the law when considering of banning the weapons. However, the safety of innocent civilian lives should be our primary concern. Systems that do not attack, such as Surveillance Autonomous Drones, are not a major concern, but those that attack specific targets should be banned until it is confirmed that there will be no civilian casualties when using these drones.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Nigeria
Delegate Name: Raphael Bahlbi
School: Grand Rapids City High School

The Federal Republic of Nigeria knows that autonomous weapon systems are machines made with only one intent in mind: to kill any enemy in sight with no human control. Advances are being exponentially made in Artificial Intelligence, with large portions of these going towards building autonomous weapons. The United Kingdom, Germany, and South Korea are busy developing autonomous robotic weapons that do not have the human instinct to limit civilian casualties, or the ability to not be held accountable for war crimes. Autonomous weapons raise ethical, legal, moral and technical issues in relation to international humanitarian and international human rights laws, in no situation can autonomous weapon comply with humanitarian laws. When autonomous weapons are left to do the killing, who can be held accountable? Will the A.I be advanced enough to make a clear cut decision that a trained soldier could? There are too many instances where technology cannot replace a trained soldier on the battlefield, therefore it is of utmost importance that we enact a resolution to restrict autonomous weapon systems.

Early last year the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva determined that autonomous weapon systems should be regulated by International Humanitarian law. Due to an absence of any standard methods for evaluating autonomous systems regulations cannot be made. Nigeria is in strong support of regulations regarding the morality and safety of these weapons. As President Muhammadu Buhari has stated, “We commend the efforts of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to broadly address this issue and urge Member States to remain seized with this matter.” Autonomous weapons are a very risky technology, thus making the issue of a coming to a resolution even more needed as advancement in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons become exceedingly prevalent. The Federal Republic of Nigeria recommends a resolution that would curtail all development on autonomous weapons until a standard ethical code is developed.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: North Korea
Delegate Name: Anders Palarz
School: Mattawan High School

It has been shared that there have been scientific advancements in military technology— primarily, robotics. Autonomous weapons systems (AWS) have humanitarian and moral concerns, such as what context they should attack, and the possibility of deadly developments in the future. However, there are many benefits to continuing the development of Autonomous weapons systems that can outweigh the concerns. These weapons are automatic, meaning they could potentially eliminate the need for human combat in the future. This could potentially save many unnecessary lives in battle and defense.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea currently has Autonomous weapons systems in place along the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea. Along with these weapons are human soldiers ready to defend our people. However, just in a time period of less than fifty years, sporadic outbreaks of violence have killed many soldiers, including over 500 South Korean troops, 250 DPRK Troops, and 50 United States troops. If the zone was to have more Autonomous weapons systems, there would be a reduced number of defense casualties.

As a country with a smaller population and a higher need for defense, The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea supports the research and development of Autonomous Weapons Systems as it would enable a respectable defense without recruiting a majority of our small population. With our military requirements met, this would allow for us to focus our civilian population on economic repair and stability. In terms of responsibility, we believe the nation who developed and deployed the Autonomous Weapons System should be responsible for their actions. If there was to be a continuation of research and development of Autonomous weapons systems, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would support it for the purposes of helping, defending, and protecting our people.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Norway
Delegate Name: Josiah Sherk
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

As a result progressing modern technology, autonomous and semi-autonomous robotics systems are being developed. These systems have a vast array of intriguing implications: home use, automated driving, relief efforts. It is their application in the military that is controversial. The U.S.A., Sweden, Russia, China, and several other nations are very close to developing fully autonomous lethal weapons that can select and independently engage targets, including humans. While possibly reducing the use of infantry in battle, costs of lost aircrafts, and reducing the risk of certain missions, the possibility of this new technology sparks a number of ethical questions: Should robots be given the decision to end human lives? Can a machine operate within international and humanitarian law? If something goes wrong, who will be responsible? The emergence of these artificially intelligent systems that select and kill targets autonomously could “potentially be more dangerous than nukes” (Elon Musk). Yet the race to build killer robots has begun, and we, along with Russia, China, the US and several other major countries have begun to develop these weapons.

Recently Norway has joined the race to develop these weapons. The construction of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fully autonomous missile firing jet, is well underway, with expectations that it will be completed by 2025. At a 2014 Geneva Conference, Norway stated that there is "no problem with the weapons as long as they were able to operate under humanitarian and international law. We already “[carry] out attacks on radar installations, tanks and ships using autonomous drones and missiles” (New York Times).

This November, Norway urges that the UN does not avoid technological advances made possible by AI and autonomous systems. We need to support and continue to fund the global construction of autonomous weapons systems. The future of warfare and of the world depends on our ability to confidently step into the unknown with a plan. The possibility of limiting the use of infantry in warfare could save thousands of lives. Is a post apocalyptic world of terminators what we will see? Or will it be a world of order and peace? The decisions we make in this committee will not be to protect Norwegian lives, but to protect human lives.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Pakistan
Delegate Name: William Kelly
School: Grand Rapids City High School

The delegation from Pakistan firmly believes that the current amount of United-Nations regulation on autonomous weapon creation and development is merely a fraction of would rightfully should be enacted. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan's previously passed 2014 resolution- titled "Ensuring use of remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones in counter-terrorism and military operations in accordance with international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law"- while successfully addressing the former issue of transparency in the use of Autonomous Weapons Systems, do very little to help in other key aspects of the emergency as a whole. The purpose of the United Nations should be to help protect the sovereignty of nations, which the current legislation on Autonomous Weapons does not address. Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is distressed by the infringement of human rights exercised through the use of autonomous weapons systems without consent of the host country. The use of illegal drone strikes within the borders of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has resulted in the deaths of thousands, over 10% of which were civilians and 5% of which were children. The use of Autonomous Weapons has also drastically increased the death toll of counter-insurgent operations. What may have resulted in the capture of multiple POWs and little to no civilian damage has been replaced by deadly strikes with a casualty rate of 8 to 1. During this conference, we hope to draft and pass legislation that would promote ethical tactics in the use of Autonomous Weapons Systems and the protection of sovereign states from powerful nations that wish to station Autonomous Weapons with a high civilian casualty rate within the host states' borders.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Palestine
Delegate Name: Samuel Frishman
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Autonomous Weapons are a system of machines designed to target and kill any opponent it detects with no human help. AWS are the results of centuries of weapons technology advancement and while we are in the early stages of autonomous weapons being a game-changing weapon, it is still currently a grave danger. Autonomous weapons have the potential to unleash mayhem like never before; the dangers that come with the advancement of autonomous weapons cannot be taken lightly. First, we must take into account humanitarian law: allowing robots to become killing machines crosses the lines of moral and just warfare. Who is left accountable for deaths when robots are doing the killing? Should deadly force always be executed fully by living beings? Second, we are faced with understanding just how deadly these weapons can be – eventually, they will wipe out societies to the point of non-existence. With this knowledge, we are then tasked with creating a resolution for the restriction of autonomous weapons. These are questions that can no longer be ignored.

In the 1970s, the UN become increasingly aware of the incoming danger of new weapons and weapons system that may pose threats to humanitarian law. Because of this, The International Committee of the Red Cross brought together government officials to have a conference entitled the Conference of Government Experts on Weapons that may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or Have Indiscriminate Effects in Switzerland from 24 September to 18 October in 1974. At the conference, prolonged debate and analysis of different weapons, including incendiary and treacherous weapons, occurred. This meeting the birthed Resolution 32/152 in 19 December 1977. This convening merged into the first Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons (as well as adopting the first three protocols) on 10 October 1980. These protocols came to be in 1983. The conference has continued on, and in conjunction with Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, and others, we, the State of Palestine, at the 2014 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, have stated our stance against autonomous weapons. Our representative, Adel Atieh, spoke on the issue of Palestinians being killed with autonomous weapons there: “Drones with lethal autonomous munitions have been extensively used to target Palestinians.” Atieh references that local farmers are being killed by these weapons. The Israeli Defense Forces, as expected, declined the request for comment. As of 5 January 2015, The State of Palestine has signed protocol I and III, thus consenting to be bound to the two protocols.

Despite some countries’ claims that they do no exist, Autonomous Weapons are real and they are killing our people. The high-tech militaries of the USA, Russia, China, and Israel, among others, are using a system of weapons we will not stand for. These weapons go against world-wide moral principles as well as current treaties and international laws (like the CCW.) As such, Humanitarian law should prohibit the use of weapons that scientists across the globe, like Stephen Hawking, have strongly spoke out against. We believe a ban on autonomous weapons should be taken into strong consideration by the United Nations and hope a resolution can come to fruition soon.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Panama
Delegate Name: Joeita Macfield
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Autonomous weapon systems are defined as weapons that can independently select and attack targets. The United States and the United Kingdom have publicly available national policies on autonomous weapon systems. Autonomous Weapon Systems allow, for the first time, the possibility of eliminating the human operator from the battlefield. In May of 2014, the first Meeting of Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems was held at the United Nations in Geneva. The participants recognized the potential of Autonomous Weapon Systems to entirely change the nature of war, as well as a variety of ethical dilemmas weapons systems raise. The United Nations has had multiple conventions on the ethical and logical problems that arise with the use of autonomous weapons. The United Nation's special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions declared that “war without reflection is mechanical slaughter, in the same way that the taking of any human life deserves at the minimum some deliberation, a decision to allow machines to be deployed deserves a collective pause, in other words, a moratorium.”

Panama lacks a standing army, but has limited military forces. Although, on the topic of autonomous weapon systems, Panama is one of the many countries which has acquired uninhabited air vehicles. However, autonomous weapon systems are not critical issues in Panama. Panama has alliances with the United States of America and the European Union. The United States is committed to the International Humanitarian Law, believing that lethal autonomous weapons may present legal, policy and ethical issues. Also, several of member states of the European Union are members of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and has been called to “ban the development, production and use of fully autonomous weapons which enable strikes to be carried out without human intervention.” Due to Panama’s alliances with these regions, Panama is in accord with their stance on autonomous weapon systems.

The International Committee of the Red Cross wrote, “If weapons become more autonomous they may become less predictable. Unpredictability would raise serious questions with regard to compliance with International Humanitarian Law.” Therefore, there is no certainty that a weapon system will always operate within the law. Countries in favor of autonomous weapon systems bear legal responsibility. The control over the selection and attack of targets should be maintained solely by humans. There is no certainty that an autonomous weapon would be capable of discriminating between a civilian and a combatant, nor is there certainty that an autonomous weapon would be capable of assessing the required precautions in attack to minimize civilian casualties. Countries should be allowed to continue to responsibly explore the military implications of robotics. Potential technologies may come into accord with the International Humanitarian Law.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Philippines
Delegate Name: Adam Delanoy
School: Forest Hills Central High School

Philippines as a country have been struggling with poverty for quite some time making these autonomous weapons a steep price for military to purchase.Even so Autonomous weapon systems are not yet advanced enough to warrant a decision to fire a mile/bullets at a plane with real humans on it. If a single missile targets and successfully hits a civilian or enemy plane, there could be catastrophic events that follow.

The price of these weapons are massive because of the advanced technology that is in them. Even though technology has been advancing so rapidly that does not mean these machines are going to do exactly what they are supposed to do without having human error. With missiles and weapons as deadly as these there is zero room for error. Such effective and dangerous weapons should be limited to the bigger and more technologically advanced country (USA,Japan,England).

The weapons such as drones that are controlled by people are not consider "autonomous"for the fact that they do not run alone and require human users in their own programming.The thing that effects the autonomous weapons most is the fact that they are not humans and they do not have emotion and process of thought, they could see something and if they are programmed to shoot they will without second thought

The Philippines has no money and no need for these weapons with no Waring or enemy country that it needs defending from.The Philippines are currently not at war with any country and have no immediate need for defense of their country showing why the Philippines have no use for the autonomous weapons.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Poland
Delegate Name: Luke Wassink
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Beginning in the 21st century, significant advancements have been made in lethal weapon systems. The need for a more powerful weapon grows as technology grows, and the boundaries of war continue to stretch. Technology now has the ability to make moral decisions.Poland believes that humanitarian law can only decide punishment if the law is just. The problem of autonomous weapons is that autonomous weapon systems lack human characteristics that decide the fate of other humans, and that it is not morally acceptable for a machine to decide to take the life of another human based on complex algorithms and complex math. Recently, Russia has created a weapon that can function automatically; the target is detected and engaged upon automatically. A weapon of this caliber could create massive bloodshed in nearby areas, especially considering the fact that Russia has already invaded the Crimean peninsula. This needs to be addressed by humanitarian law.

Although Poland is not currently in an area of conflict, it is important to us that human rights are not infringed upon, and countries are still able to develop new technology and better protect their inhabitants. In the past, Poland has protected human rights by signing the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, a treaty, on 10 April 1981. This treaty has, in the past, regulated the development of weapons, and put a cap on the autonomy that a weapon can posses???. It is important that this treaty regulates the development of autonomous weapons for the wellbeing of the human population. If something other than this treaty regulates the development of these weapons, loopholes are bound to be found and exploited by users of the weapons. One concrete rule that needs to be set is the necessity of meaningful human control. Meaningful human control is necessary to prevent rampant use of weapons, and to enforce punishments upon the guilty party. Autonomous weapons cannot be punished or blamed for the conflict, so the question must be asked who is to blame. Ultimately, this cannot be decided due to the fact that the programming resulting in the demise of the victim could have been accidental. In addition, the creator of the weapon system cannot be easily identifiable among the massive population of weapon producers. This is why Poland is so favorable to weapons with meaningful human control.

Poland urges countries of the United Nations to oppose the development of autonomous weapons, and to favor those that involve meaningful human control. Once this issue is addressed, humanity will be better protected from the devastating effects of autonomous weapons. Poland will cast its vote with a resolution that mandates meaningful human control. Resolutions that regulate the production of autonomous weapon systems and limit the amount produced will also be strongly favored by Poland.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Portugal
Delegate Name: Brett Hulbert
School: Mattawan High School

The U.S. Department of Defense defines Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) as “a system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human.” This lack of human intervention suggests the possibility of eliminating human operation entirely from the battlefield. This in itself raises a series of ethical dilemmas. Will AWS ever be able to fully demonstrate qualitative decision-making such as those shown in humans? Do AWS help provide safety to civilians, or do they pose a greater threat to safety than human warfare?

The delegation of Portugal recognizes these moral dilemmas, and encourages discussion on ways to implement AWS. The delegation of Portugal believes that under adequate rules and regulations, the use of drones will be overall beneficial to the world, due to the extraordinary ability of the AWS to complete tasks that cannot be undertaken by humans. However, it is essential to realize the potential threats these drones pose, not only to Portugal, but the innocent people around the globe. This is the reason Portugal has not fully committed to the implementation of AWS. As stated by Portuguese representative Álvaro Mendonça e Moura during a United Nations General Assembly: “We share specific humanitarian, moral and legal concerns related to ongoing developments on a set of the so-called "new era warfare tools", including proliferation of armed drones, lethal autonomous weapons system eventual development… These discussions should take into account, in our view, the need to promote transparency and applicable international law or, when needed, the establishment of regulatory multilateral security frameworks.”

Portugal has strived towards ensuring that these AWS pose no danger to defenseless individuals; because of this, the delegation of Portugal encourages discussion to stray from whether or not AWS should be implemented, and instead focus on how AWS can be implemented to keep peace among nations.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Russia
Delegate Name: Emma McNorton
School: Royal Oak High School

Russia would like to begin by stating that any use of autonomous weapon systems must be in accordance with international humanitarian law and international human rights. The question of the morality of autonomous weapons has been debated by many nations in the past decade, we believe that agreement in this statement will provide added harmony to this committee.

When these weapons are being developed it is imperative that the nations are taking into the account the legality of their technology as viewed by the international community. There is a certain amount of trust we must provide our sovereign nations, and Russia believes to build on this trust, transparency between nations’ development in this area of technology would provide another layer of accountability. From this transparency, when there is evidence that a nation has actively violated international humanitarian law in wartime, or human rights law in an internal peacetime incident, we as an international community must respond with action. One point of contention is who to charge with the illegal use of these weapons. For autonomous weapons there are three categories: semi-autonomous, supervised autonomous, and fully autonomous, and as these weapons become more and more independent the direct responsibility some say becomes more muddled. However, Russia believes that proper investigation will yield what human being, if any is directly responsible. We must take these investigations on a case by case basis, and not use this committee’s precious time to focus on specific instances. We must rather decide what standard we want to hold our nations to.

Russia believes that the use of these weapons is ethically justifiable as long as they do not violate standards already agreed upon by the international community. A nation can use whichever method of weapon providing that they are in the situations set parameters. Countries should be able to explore this technology. We as a world must continue to be innovative and also compassionate, and if these weapons could in turn reduce the total amount of casualties then Russia sees no need to place impediments. Russia looks forward to taking this leap of innovation with all other nations during in this committee and working towards an innovative compassionate future.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Rwanda
Delegate Name: Matthew Jovanovic
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Throughout the last decade, robotic and weapons technology has seen massive advancements. The increased use of UAVs and other unmanned drones patrolling the skies seas, and land are reason for concern. However, these weapons are controlled by humans and cannot make any decision to release a lethal force without human intervention. For every target 28 unknown, possibly innocent people are killed by drones, and this is when humans are pulling the trigger. If we already have reasonably poor of judgement imagine having autonomous weapon systems (AWS) that could, without human intervention, kill humans. The lack of morality that a machine has would allow it to be a killing machine for whoever programs it. Rwanda finds that the development of a AWS could lead to catastrophic human tragedy, and the technology if responsibly used could still fall into the wrong hands.

No fully AWS has been developed yet, however, countries have developed semi-autonomous weapons. These weapons often kill unintended people even when humans make the judgement call. To allow a machine to make a decision of this magnitude is troubling at best. Who would be liable for an incorrect kill, can a machine operate with compliance to international law, and can a machine be programmed to act ethically? Many scientists have come together asking the international community to stop the development of artificial intelligence and AWS. Many of these proposals have failed to gain traction because countries refuse to allow others to obtain AWS without themselves already having their own. Technologies developed by these countries could one day fall into the hands of terrorists, and opposing ethnic, religious, or cultural groups that would use these machines to kill indiscriminately on a massive scale. If we can’t kill precisely with human intervention, who says we can trust a machine to?

Ceasing all development and research of autonomous weapon systems would be our most foolproof plan. While this is the most difficult to enforce, it would be the best way to prevent any possibility of AWS from killing future generations of humans. We could create a committee to investigate all nations and assure that no one is committing resources to the development of AWS. Another solution could allow countries to develop artificial intelligence in a transparent way that could openly be investigated at any time. Any integration of weapons to the AI will result in massive penalties and would be seen as an act of aggression to the international community. We must stop the development of advanced AI and autonomous weapon systems in order to prevent future tragedy. This is not only to protect us today but to protect the future generations of earth.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Saudi Arabia
Delegate Name: Jacqueline Spiegel
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a founding member of the United Nations, is committed to the work to achieve world security and peace.

Lethal and fully autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) without meaningful human control cannot be tolerated in the interest of peace. Without human control to distinguish a target, and act on that target, war is transformed to indiscriminate and potentially out of human control destruction. International humanitarian law (IHC) clearly recognizes the principle of distinction as primary. With the potential for actions with questionable legal responsibility, criminal cyber control, LAWS potentially do not comply with existing international human rights and law. State discussion to carefully determine the legality of such systems is our duty according to Article 36.

Two esteemed organizations deliberately consider how we might prudently discuss the matter of LAWS. The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) conducts research on disarmament and security. This esteemed institute has offered one framework to further this discussion, which is to thoughtfully define what it means to consider Meaningful Human Control (MHC). Another important matter might be to define clearly autonomy as our world includes more and more autonomous capability in our everyday lives.

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) has responded to the challenge to consider LAWS as an emerging issue and has held meetings of experts to consider the legality of these potential weapons systems.

It seems the great number of political and expert bodies persuaded to see these weapons and potential arms race stopped, might make the Marten’s Clause an aspect to “consider the dictates of public conscience” in the matter of LAWS.

We must be prepared to respond to these emerging technologies and their ethical implications.

We are in accord with the statement made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 30 May 2013, to the special rapporteur on LARS and their deployment, “States should establish national moratoria on lethal autonomous robotics and states should take action on this issue.”

_________________________

Works Cited

https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750065

https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750065

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/684AB3F3935B5C42C1257CC200429C7C/$file/Report+of+the+Special+Rapporteur+on+extrajudicial,.pdf

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?viewComments=LookUpCOMART&articleUNID=FEB84E9C01DDC926C12563CD0051DAF7

http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/considering-how-meaningful-human-control-might-move-the-discussion-forward-en-615.pdf

http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/framing-discussions-on-the-weaponization-of-increasingly-autonomous-technologies-en-606.pd https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jnhy.htm

http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KRC_CountryStatus_14Mar2014.pdf

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Serbia
Delegate Name: Connor Buhl
School: Fishers High School

Serbia is a nation that has a bloody past involving drones and autonomous weapon systems and as a result we know that their use must be condemned and cease indefinitely. In 1999, the international community ignored the national sovereignty of the former Yugoslav states and joined a NATO effort to cause unwarranted destruction in the Balkans. This bombing killed somewhere between 489 – 528 innocent civilians. These bombings were some of the first uses of the predator drone by either the USA or NATO and the Serbian people certainly felt the impact of these bombings. While Serbs died in the streets and their workplaces, a man in a chair thousands of miles away reaped destruction by pressing a single button. After experiencing the carnage from these bombing campaigns, Serbia strongly condemns the use of autonomous weapon systems. We believe that the indiscriminate killing power of armed UAVs shows that there can be no positive outcome from further development of autonomous weapon systems. Even with the most advanced robotics, AWS will continue to take innocent lives and in a greater scale than any human could perform.

Serbia believes that restricting the use of AWS does not infringe upon national sovereignty, but in fact does the opposite by protecting the sovereignty of nations who will undoubtedly have their airspace or borders violated by AWS owning nations in military operations. In addition, nations that have the capabilities to field AWS will have a major advantage over nations without them. Any technology that allows a nation to kill hundreds without any retaliation or condemnation is certainly something that Serbia hopes future generations never have to deal with. We believe that nations that do currently utilize weaponized UAVs and other AWS are fully responsible for the casualties they leave behind. If we do not do this and condemn nations that use AWS then these nations will always have an advantage over every nation that does not possess the same military technology. Currently, it would be possible for a developed nation to lead a campaign of tyranny against developing nations without having a single casualty on their side. These nations argue that AWS are safer because they reduce allied casualties. But Serbia must remind these nations and the committee that the UN was founded to be neutral in armed conflict and to encourage peace. Peace cannot be reached if we determine a single side as wrong or right. If we allow a certain side to be right in a conflict then we ignore the human lives being lost on the other side.

Serbia does, however, tolerate and utilize, surveillance based UAVs. Our government and military own several non-weapon based UAVs for use in peaceful surveillance and reconnaissance. The International Humanitarian Law does not currently have any regulations on AWS due to an absence of standard evaluation method. Serbia believes that an easy regulation and reasonable solution would be to simply restrict the use of AWS to surveillance and not allow or, at the very least, strongly condemn the use of weapon based AWS. We believe that by taking this step, the international community can save countless lives from indiscriminate destruction.

Works Cited

Iii, Experimentelle Physik, Germany Technische Universität Dortmund, Arbeitsgruppe Dpg-Jahrestagung, and Physik Und Abrüstung. "Ban on Autonomous Weapon Systems." Ban on Autonomous Weapon Systems – Issues of Definition and Compliance (n.d.): n. pag. DPG-PHYSIK.DE. 19 Mar. 2014. Web.

"NATO Bombs Yugoslavia." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

"UAV's: Serbian UAV Solution "Sparrow"" Balkan Monitor A Defence Security Daily. N.p., 28 Jan. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Slovakia
Delegate Name: Peyton Klochack
School: Grand Blanc High School

There is very little history containing the topic of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS), for it is relatively new and still evolving technology. Many first world countries have made developments to add it to their military. The main form of this technology in the military are called Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as “drones”. Their main purpose is to attack from the air and are controlled by humans to launch airstrikes against targets. However, other countries that don’t have access to this technology or defenses against it can’t appreciate these benefits. These countries don’t appreciate their airspace being compromised and weapons firing into their territory. There is also risk for human error in controlling these UAVs as well as the risk of this technology falling into the wrong hands.

Slovakia has AWSs and UAVs, but has not yet used them in combat. This is simply because we have seen no issue arise that garners that level of attention. It is not a comment on the ethics or politics surrounding the use of them. Generally, Slovakia supports the use of AWSs as many other countries in the European Union (E.U.) do use them for military purposes. Slovakia agrees with any proposal to solve these issues that the E.U. has developed and strongly agrees with any proposal that the members of the Visegrad group may put forth. The Committee should consider and respect the opinions of the countries that are directly affected negatively by airstrikes and other attacks by AWSs in their country.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Somalia
Delegate Name: Samuel Mendoza
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Autonomous weapon systems are a heavily debated topic today. Some believe that the continued development of autonomous weapon systems is necessary to the security of their country while others believe that autonomous weapon systems are an evil that will eliminate the liability of the operator and its country of operation. As of yet, the United Nations has taken no action issue. Because Somalia is in the midst of a civil war, autonomous weapons are a resource we strongly desire but have no access to because of financial troubles. Despite our desire for autonomous weapon systems, the weapons would be regulated to ensure the liability of countries that use them.

Somalia supports the use of autonomous weapon systems, as we are currently engaged in a civil war, but believe that regulation is necessary in order to ensure that countries who use them bear responsibility for the actions of their weapons. the International Committee of the Red Cross has determined that autonomous weapon systems are regulated under international humanitarian law. However, formal regulations have not been made, as there is no standard for evaluation of autonomous weapons meaning that is they are hard to regulate. Furthermore, this lack of regulation can allow countries with ill intent to use autonomous weapons systems that would violate regulations if they existed. We believe that lethal force through autonomous weapons is ethical, but the repercussions of that force must fall upon the country of operation and the operator of the weapon.

Somalia calls upon the United Nations to formally regulate the use of autonomous weapon systems and the methods used to evaluate them. The United Nations must also ensure the liability of the country of operation and the operator of the weapon so no country is tempted to illegally target another country and claim malfunction of the weapon. The United Nations must pass these resolutions in order to ensure the safety of all people in all countries and ensure the liability of countries if they choose to attack another country.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: South Africa
Delegate Name: Emma Wilkerson
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Christof Heyns, the U.N's special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, once said “war without reflection is mechanical slaughter, in the same way that the taking of any human life deserves at the minimum some deliberation, a decision to allow machines to be deployed deserves a collective pause, in other words, a moratorium.” In Geneva the United Nations had their first meeting regarding Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWS) in May of 2014. There has been a variety of talk on the logical and ethical issues with the use of autonomous weapons. Autonomous weapons are systems that can attack and select targets without human interaction. Both the United Kingdom and the United States have national policies regarding autonomous weapons. South Africa is closely concerned with whether the new technologies would be complaint with the rules of international humanitarian law, including those of distinction, proportionality and military necessity and their potential impact on human rights.

The concept of “meaningful human control” is what we, as South Africans, are supportive of. There should always be human control in the instance of life or death. We need to deepen the understanding of human oversight and control of such weapons. Even of those that are reported to be “semi-autonomous.” South Africa believes that any new weapons of warfare should go with the law of armed conflict. Weapons systems, in use, would need to comply with the fundamental rule of International Humanitarian Law. All of these things we think fit to be looked over were in place and discussed in our CCW statement at the meeting of experts in April of 2014. In our UNGA First Committee statement in April 2015 we stated “…we should support efforts aimed at increasing our knowledge of the potential humanitarian impact of such substances in order to better understand the civilian health and environmental legacy of conflict”.

Before making or ruling out any decisions on LAWS, South Africa encourages the rest of the UN to think about the bigger picture of LAWS. There needs to be ground regulations set. In the matter of life and death a human should always be in control of the system. The UN needs to make proper decisions based on human right laws.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: South Korea
Delegate Name: Akhil Vinod
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Today warfare has advanced far beyond what it had been during the world wars. Robots and new technologies have moved warfare to behind screens. Radars, surveillance, guns, and bombs have made wars more deadly and widespread, but now an even greater innovation threatens the peace, Autonomous Weapons Systems. Autonomous Weapons Systems can vary from drones to surveillance technology. Drones have sped up the effectiveness of battles and increased their severity. It takes mere seconds for a drone to fully decimate enemy, though AWS can also be used for good. Bomb surveillance drones have decreased the death toll from unseen mines. In the past AWS were still in the primordial forms of research. However, with new discoveries the field has advanced to a level of national concern. While AWS are beneficial to countries, the question of how ethical they are come into play. Do AWS help maintain peace, or do they encourage the act of warfare? The United Nations have brought its members together to discuss the pressing concern.

Ever since the Korean War, the Republic of Korea, informally known as South Korea, has been in a tense situation of maintaining the armistice between it and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Today the demilitarized zone between the two countries remains as one of the most heavily guarded and surveyed territories in the world. Due to the hostility between the two countries, the Republic of Korea has developed weapon systems to counteract those of the DPRK. During the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 2014, the Republic of Korea called for and “objective review of relevant technologies.” South Korea asked for the United Nations to alleviate restrictions on peaceful robots used to protect soldiers and clear explosives. The drones that we want are used for defensive purposes only. Our scientists have developed sentries like the SGR-A1 is positioned in the DMZ to identify and destroy hostile targets. While we are in possession of lethal robotic weapons, the AWS’s only purpose is to defend against North Korean surveillance. As a safeguard for our weapon systems, the SGR-A1’s only operate under human surveillance. Our people consider the development and use of AWS essential to their country’s security, though we have asked that an “ethics charter” be written by the UN and a code of conduct be written for the manufacture, development, and use of robots. It is crucial to the future of our world that we restrict the production of lethal AWS, while their defensive use be monitored.

We need to face this issue soon as it is essential to the future security of our countries. A charter that states the limits of AWS manufacturing and usage should be established. The importance of human supervision should be implemented to guide the selecting and engaging of targets of any new lethal weapon systems. It is necessary to address the legality of lethal technology and impose restrictions where their implementation is acceptable. In order to move forward we must approve a charter stating the limits of targets AWS may engage, restrictions on their manufacture, and the implementation of human supervision. AWS will change war as we know it. It is up to us to decide on how far AWS are allowed to develop and when they can be used to save lives. It key that we focus on this issue to ensure the safety of our future generations.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Spain
Delegate Name: MacKenzie McCowen
School: Vicksburg High School

“Killer robots” – autonomous weapons systems that can identify and destroy targets in the absence of human control – should be strictly monitored to prevent violations of international or humanitarian law, nations from around the world.

Spain, among other states, lined up at a special UN meeting in Geneva to warn of the potential dangers of this rapidly advancing technology. Several countries spoke of the need for ongoing issue to ensure that the weapons conformed to the Geneva conventions’ rules on proportionality in war. The Spanish delegation went further, invoking the possibility of a new arms race as developed countries scrambled to get ahead. This called for “meaningful human control” of lethal weapons to be enshrined in international law, although the meeting also admitted that the precise definition of that principle had yet to be clarified. By the end of this conference, Spain would like to see the use of Killer Robots no longer put to use.

Countries could choose to deploy these weapons more frequently and with less critical consideration if they do not have to worry about sacrificing troops. Proliferation of these weapons systems could spin out of control easily, both for military and police use.

At the prompting of nongovernmental organizations and United Nations experts, discussions began earlier this year to address the many technical, legal, military, ethical, and societal questions relating to the prospect of lethal autonomous weapons systems.

The debate should be expected to deepen and broaden as the talks continue. The hope is that they will lead rapidly to formal negotiations on a new treaty preemptively banning weapons systems that do not require meaningful human control over the key functions of targeting and firing.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Sri Lanka
Delegate Name: Conor Streng
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) are a new and more recent threat to our world and to maintaining overall world peace. AWS’s are weapon systems that once activated can select and engage targets without any more human intervention. This allows AWS’s to kill and destroy faster than any soldier could. Obviously, they give the countries (and people) who have them a major advantage over those who don’t. Additionally, if and when they fall into the hands of terrorist organizations they present a colossal threat to civilian populations around the world. Unfortunately, AWS’s are not always known for their accuracy, which leads to civilian casualties who can be targeted by these systems for no reason. However, this doesn’t stop the creation of AWS. Sri Lanka only sees problems in the future. While countries try to build better and more deadly AWS’s they race against each other, which will lead to an arms race similar to what has happened with Nuclear Weapons. Worse still is this: if AWS’s were to become widespread like Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) the U.N. could have a permanent problem detrimental to global security. This is why AWS’s are a serious problem.

Sri Lanka recognizes the possible catastrophic effects that AWS’s could have if we don’t put a stop to them now. This is why Sri Lanka supports the banning of future development and creation of AWS’s. They will only lead to more problems than their supporters will claim they solve. We need to take immediate action to stop this problem at the root.

There is only one solution for this problem. Thankfully it is simple and with international cooperation it should be easy. Ban the creation and development of all AWS’s and and any technology directly related to them. We recommended the banning blinding laser weapons earlier this year with Protocol IV: it should be possible do this again with AWS’s. This is the only possible solution and the only one that makes sense. We would also settle for creating a resolution that specified the use of AWS’s only as a final resort. While some may argue that this means we are also trying to ban all weapons that is not what Sri Lanka is trying to say. While you can bring a human who has killed someone to trial, you can’t bring a computer program to a court.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Sudan
Delegate Name: BJ Franovic
School: Forest Hills Central High School

Autonomous weapons systems (being weapons capable of determining targets on their own and assaulting a target without any intervention from humans beyond initial creation and tuning of settings) are a relatively new and pressing matter with huge advancements of technology and military uses for these technological advances. With this booming age of technology, major super powers of the world seem to be very close to inventing practical and plausible autonomous weapons systems giving huge amounts of powers to these countries (such as China, the U.S., Russia, India, etc.). With funding both research and development of these autonomous weapons being a huge cost, it seems unfeasible for countries with bigger issues than improving their military to as far as not needing any human control to be able to afford these systems. Despite never giving a formal opinion to the United Nations, it is clear to us (Sudan) that allowing for these autonomous weapons systems to be freely developed without any restriction will lead to a higher spread in military dominance and imperialism of the already major super powers. But, we do see some positives of course. In the right hands, autonomous weapons systems can take any human error out of the battle field and allow for a more “educated” and instantaneous decision on whether or not someone poses a threat worth stopping. Although not having a strong ability to produce these weapons at the scale of some of the major superpowers, we do see the possibility of a positive out of these weapons and therefore have neither a strong negative nor strong positive stance.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Sweden
Delegate Name: Joshua Reminga
School: Forest Hills Central High School

Autonomous weapons systems are weapons that are controlled without any human input. An autonomous weapon is able to identify, target, and ultimately kill or destroy its desired target. This type of weapon is still currently in development in many countries and so far no country has come out with a fully functional model ready for field use. The nature of these types of weapons and their effectiveness is yet to be known due to the fact that there only exist prototypes of these models thus far.

Sweden currently has not taken any actions against autonomous weapons systems directly. However Sweden has participated in talks regarding the use of such systems and believes that they are dangerous items whose use should be carefully dictated.

Sweden would like to see resolutions passed that restrict the use and development of lethal autonomous weapons systems. Civilian safety is one of Sweden’s main concerns so it would like to see specific zoning resolutions passed to ensure the safety of civilians.

Sweden expects that countries including The United States, Britain, and France, will also support restrictions upon lethal autonomous weapons systems. Sweden believes this due to the support on this issue that the aforementioned countries have shown in previous conversations.

Sweden believes that The Republic of Korea may oppose the proposition of banning autonomous weapons completely on the premise that they believe that the technology developed due to autonomous weapons could positively affect the field of robotics and civilian life.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Switzerland
Delegate Name: Thomas Poole
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

Autonomous Weapon Systems are a rising force in the world. A product of recent technological developments and improvements, these AWSs have the ability to make battlefield decisions and to fight. They can take the place of human soldiers in combat, but not without a price. Though they reduce the threat towards soldiers, AWSs pose risks of human rights violations through their potential limitations.

Switzerland itself has abstained from the use of drones or other unmanned vehicles in combat, believing instead that too many questions remain unanswered about the limitations and complexities of the artificial intelligence used in AWSs. In the past, Switzerland has made its opinions known on this account, calling for more discussion on the potential flaws and issues that could occur.

These issues mostly deal with the humanitarian and human rights violations that could occur. Switzerland is a strong advocate for these rights, and any infringement upon them would be seen as unacceptable. Though recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence have greatly enhanced their ability to think and consider possibilities and situations, many questions still remain about the capability of AWSs to distinguish between friend, foe, and neutral parties. The last thing any nation wants is a massacre of civilian. Furthermore, are we, the member states of the United Nations, certain that an AWS can correctly evaluate a situation and determine the necessary response? Are we certain that an AWS can know what severity of response is called for?

After all, to kill or not to kill; that is the question.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Syria
Delegate Name: Peter Ellinger
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Autonomous weapons have become the latest advancement in military technology. Autonomous weapons are described as weapons that can acquire, track, select, and engage a target with little to no human operation. Although there are no fully-autonomous weapons currently used, several countries such as the United States and Russia both use semi-autonomous drones and missiles such as the Tomahawk cruise missile. As with all military technologies, there are positives and negatives to the issue. Now, as militaries across the globe experiment with robots that will reduce direct human military operations, the debate about these “killer robots” has begun.

Syria has an extensive history of militaristic engagements with neighboring countries, especially Israel. Since the early nineteen hundreds when it split from the ottoman empire and for the next three decades switched between british and french rule, it was an unstable country from its beginning. This instability proved to have reached a tipping point in 2011, as Syria fell into a civil war. In 2015, as Syria's leader Bashar al-Assad is being confronted with violent uprisings by not only anti-Assad rebels but islamic terrorist groups such as ISIL. Although in september of 2014, the Syrian minister of reconciliation said that U.S. military strikes in Syria by autonomous or non-autonomous weapons without notifying the syrian government or the in the absence of a UN security council decision would be a direct act of violence against syria. However on September 10 as president Obama announced his intention to bomb syria, the only people the U.S. notified was Syria's UN representative and Iran. Now, as the United States and Russia have both began engaging targets in syria, and have been using semi-autonomous weapons with increasing regularity. Al-Assad has been passive during these air strikes as both have said they are targeting ISIL groups. Although by June 2015 the United States had killed over 10,000 ISIL members, there have been civilian casualties. On the 23rd of september 2014, a U.S. tomahawk missile struck the Syrian city of Kafr Daryan and visibly killed a dozen citizens. However within 10 days of Russian airstrikes in september of 2015, all conducted via pited aircraft, they had killed 370 people, 127 of those civilians and 36 of those children.

In the end, war is war. There will never be a war engaged in the near future that is conducted perfectly in accordance with ethics, and without civilian casualties. And although it is impossible to know it a human could program a perfectly ethical autonomous weapon system, researchers are focused on a system that will perform more reliably than humans in combat situations. We believe that autonomous weapons will have the ability in the future to increase effectiveness on the battlefield, while decreasing damage and loss of life. However until a drone is invented that can with consistency achieve this, there needs to be regulations in place to limit their use. Although in the UN conference in April of 2015 there was a consensus on the undesirability of fully autonomous weapons, there needs to be more restrictions placed on them. As countries increase the use of drones and semi-autonomous missiles with increasing frequency abroad and in our country of Syria, these restrictions need to be placed soon, as the lives of thousands of Syrians depend on it.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Tunisia
Delegate Name: Matthew Russell
School: Williamston High School

As the United Nations must limit the use of these devices as it goes against many moral standards as well as if it were to falls into the wrong hands it could result in countless instances of death because automated weapon systems are incredibly easy to use and pilot and can kill autonomous. As of June 2015 the death toll of automated weapon systems by aerial vehicles alone is thought to have exceeded 6000, 890 of these being civilians and another 175 being children. There are already autonomous weapon systems being used at the 38th parallel separating North and South Korea that are able to kill with no human interaction or human control.

Any automated weapon could be used in a way to prevent terrorism. However I also see if these got into the wrong hands we could have quite an issue, not just for my country for the entire world. For instance if these got the hands of the very terrorists they were trying to stop groups such as ISIS these weapons could be used against us. The fact that if these are allowed to continue being used and produced the way they are there will be so many that it will be incredibly easy for people like arms dealers to take them and sell them to very dangerous people. They are also a danger to national sovereignty this is because of how small they are as they do not need a pilot inside of any kind. They are not easily picked up by radar making it almost impossible for a country to predict if it’s about to be attacked by whoever may be attacking. Furthermore the people who are held responsible for these automated weapon systems are the governments or organizations were controlling them. This brings me to another point. As far as these machines having the ability to automatically destroy targets should only be by immobile ground-based units is not having human control of air-based units could potentially lead to an interference of national sovereignty.

I propose that while these devices are still used there should be strict guidelines in place to protect the national sovereignty such as restrictions in crossing a nation’s borders. This could be achieved by limiting automated weapon systems to only be able to be used against military groups that are not sovereign nations. However these autonomous weapon systems are a vital tool in the fight against terrorism. But there should also be strict procedures in place regarding who these automated weapon systems are controlled by where they are being used (suburban environments and cities as opposed to rain forest or deserts) and based on these environmental what kind of weapons are being used by the drones, As well as better security systems for these drones to make sure they are not hijacked or stolen by terrorists.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Turkey
Delegate Name: Tom Muir
School: Williamston High School

The delegation of Turkey see the use of autonomous weapons as grave threat. This emerging technology also has the potential to lead to increases civilian casualties and more indiscriminate killing than traditional methods of warfare. These new weapons systems also raise moral questions that cannot be ignored. One of the main questions is who is held accountable for the actions of autonomous weapons systems.

The development of autonomous weapons systems has been rapidly advancing and the potential of these weapons is enormous. The development of these weapons is currently unchecked and Turkey believes that in order to secure future stability and peace there must be clear rules and restrictions on them.

Turkey is a strong supporter of having direct and meaningful human control behind all weapon systems. This control is essential to maintain otherwise the awesome killing power of these weapons would be left to a computer with no morals or value of human life. If this control is eroded or lost completely turkey believes that grave human rights violations have a very high likelihood of occurring.

These systems will raise many ethical and moral questions in the future and the United Nations needs to take a strong stance against the development and use of these weapons in order to prevent immoral and fully automated killing machines from committing horrifying acts in the battlefields of the future. Turkey believes that the only acceptable uses of completely autonomous technology in warfare are in fields like bomb defusing and surveillance where it is not acting to aid soldiers.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Ukraine
Delegate Name: June Battjes
School: Williamston High School

The reason autonomous weapons are currently raising concern across the globe is because of their ethical, technical, military and political implications. As a form of artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons are oblivious to human norms and values. Currently these weapons are being developed in countries like the United States and China. These countries claim that autonomous weapons would be safe under human regulation, yet many other countries are skeptical and seek for a strict international regulation. Many countries, such as France and Brazil, are asking for the involvement of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). It is necessary that The United Nations create a strong resolution to solve this issue for the sake of humanitarian safety.

The Ukraine is highly interested in solving this issue in order to avert the suffering of civilians. As a member of the United Nations, Ukraine cares about possible humanitarian implications that autonomous weapons might cause. The Ukraine questions the accuracy of these machines, their ability to make life-or-death decisions and the complications these weapons have with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Autonomous weapons interfere with IHL due to the likeliness of them striking civilians and combatants. Ukraine is already a supporter of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and various other groups that are urging for limits on autonomous weapons.

The Ukraine would propose solving this issue by strengthening International Humanitarian Law to control the use of autonomous weapons. Countries that do not follow these regulations will be held legally responsible. Also, Ukraine requests that regulations be set by CCW. The Ukraine is interested in improving the understanding of these machines so we are aware of and can prevent possible dangers. If countries are allowed to further develop these technologies their work should be highly supervised. It is necessary to set these precedents in the interest of safety in our world. We would expect countries such as France and Brazil to support our efforts.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Ukraine
Delegate Name: Catherine Russell
School: Williamston High School

Autonomous Weapon Systems, or more commonly known as AWS or Drones, are weapons that are becoming more and more prominent in society. These weapons are meant to engage in combat by acquiring information, (such as about the terrain of a country to better prepare soldiers.) tracking, selecting, and attacking targets with minimum human operation. There have been significant advancements of AWS over the past ten years. The weapons are able to do much more now. Ultimately, this may be a bad thing. The weapons have been constrained as to what they can and cannot do, and when and how they can be used. The disarmament and International Security Committee have made attempts to regulate the AWS, but they cannot yet be made. They also must now decide whether drones are permissible by whom and what context the drones are to be used as not to infringe on the national sovereignty of all countries, which has been a problem in some nations.

Ukraine is not entirely against the use of Autonomous Weapons, but only for defence reasons. As many of the esteemed delegates in this room know, Ukraine was invaded in the September of 2014. Ukraine was attacked with drones, and lost thousands of innocent people, as well as infrastructure in densely populated areas of the nation. Ukraine also happens to be spied on, especially on military bases by Russia. However, during our time of crisis, Ukraine has used these AWS for defense during the Crimean War. Ukraine would like to continue exploring technologies to aid in the advancement of AWS. Ukraine has put a lot of funding into the creation of drones after we were invaded. Ukraine has spoken publicly about the use of these weapons, and believes that the use of drones should be used for defense and if an AWE destroys, kills, or does anything else to infringe on national sovereignty or anything dangerous, it is up to the country of the AWS’s origin to help pay for any expenses.

Ukraine would like to see a resolution where any country with drones would be allowed to keep the weapons for defense purposes. Ukraine also believes that AWS should become more regulated in areas, and should only be used for defense, never for an invasion or for spying, as this would be infringing on the national sovereignty of nations being invaded or spied on. Again, Ukraine has publicly spoken about the issues with the drones, and firmly believe that they should be regulated and used only for defense. For a secure and safe future, never for infringing on another nation’s national sovereignty.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: United Kingdom
Delegate Name: Matt Barlow
School: Mattawan High School

Autonomous weapons have been around since World War II when they were implemented by the Germans to offer information on stopping the allied forces. Nowadays, the new technology that has been brought to the forefront of the world’s stage allows the rest of the world to feel better and safer about using such unmanned technologies. Specifically for the U.K., these autonomous weapons have been used to do certain dangerous missions such as repetitive surveillance, patrols, chemical detection, and even radioactive and nuclear detection. Furthermore, they have the ability to do monotonous work that can be easily programmed into the machines, allowing for man labor to be put towards more useful jobs. Its most important and valuable contributions so far have been its ability to deliver situational commands militarily.

Today, the United Kingdom has been put on notice as a country that could effectively contribute to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq with the use of UAS (unmanned aircraft systems). When it comes down to the power of intelligence, these systems are far and away superior to those of the manned aircrafts. They have the ability to endure long periods of surveillance, which are crucial to understanding military routines amongst the opposition. Currently, the U.K. has extremely vague stances on the use of such weapons, as their doctrine states that, “the operation of weapons systems will always be under human control.” This is quite ambiguous and doesn’t offer any sort of wiggle room as to what the clear intent is.

One obvious solution to this is to fully define what this doctrine is stating and to give some sort of meaning. Along with this, further research and development is needed before any sort of autonomous weapon is given complete control without the supervision of a human. At this point, the U.K. is in support of keeping the same humanitarian laws that call for complete control over these systems. Nothing can be changed about this until more research is done concerning the benefits of such a switch.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: United States
Delegate Name: Alexander Staley
School: Fishers High School

The United States strongly believes that the use of autonomous weapons systems, with an operator to exercise human judgment over the drones are helpful for reducing casualties, and as such should remain legal, and their potential capabilities should be explored. By combining both the effectiveness of robots and the morals and intelligence of humans, taking out dangerous and hostile targets, such as terrorists, becomes easier, and decreases the likelihood of civilian or unintended causalities. It also, removes soldiers from situations that would otherwise threaten their lives.

A common deterrent from autonomous weapons systems is that the legal responsibilities quickly become blurred. Countries, military commanders, manufacturers and programmers are all potentially liable for an error or malfunction with the drones. However, if the reason someone who wasn’t supposed to be was killed, the process for reprimanding a company or nation is fairly simple. If the fault was with the autonomous weapons systems themselves, such as an error or malfunction, then the company, who can then punish specific employees will be at fault. If the problem was killing a questionable target who was later proved innocent, then the state would be held liable. Lastly, if the problem was a user’s error, then the commander would be punished. Because of this, the documentation of everything done with autonomous weapons systems is very important, and could potentially save lives if an error with code or manufacturing is found.

The United States believes that most countries, if able, should be taking researching and furthering progress in the field of autonomous weapons systems for defense from both domestic and foreign threats. The United States however, advises other countries not to send drones against questionable targets, and most importantly not to endanger civilians. Some countries have been known to either been weak to regimes or coups as well, and having this type of weapon fall into the wrong hands is dangerous and a threat to all nations. Furthering progress in this field could also have war evolve into a more robot based combat, reducing casualties.

Human judgment over autonomous weapons systems improves the accuracy and reliability of them as well. They may not know when to leave a hostile situation, or may confuse two faces as well. Having an intelligent operator may also minimize the negative effects of bad coding, if a robot handles a situation very poorly the operator would be able to take over and remedy the situation a lot easier than a robot.

The United States believes that the continuation of research into the field of autonomous weapons systems is beneficial if in the right hands, and that the legal responsibilities surrounding them are easy to fix and clear up. By allowing them, countries like us, the United States, will be able to better defend ourselves and ensure protection for other countries as well.

Works Cited

Meeting, Expert. (n.d.): 1-106. IIRC. IIRC. Web. 3 Nov. 2015. <https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/1707/4221-002-autonomous-weapons-systems-full-report.pdf>.

"US Defends Drone Strikes as 'necessary and Just' in Face of UN Criticism."The Guardian. The Guardian, n.d. Web. 3 Nov. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/25/un-drones-us-policy-debate>.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Yemen
Delegate Name: Ben Sagritalo
School: East Grand Rapids High School

Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) is a new issue that increasingly becoming more significant as the use of drones and other becomes more prevalent. The most commonly known The most well known and covered Autonomous Weapon Systems are drones, but other types of anonymous weapons are being developed. There are many concerns about the use of Autonomous Weapon Systems in the future. The potential lack of loss of human life in future wars could lead to leaders being less reluctant to go to war. Also the concern of machines being able to take human lives is a concern.

Although Autonomous Weapon Systems has only been an issue more a few years, Yemen has a significant history with AWS, more specifically drones. Over 424 people, including eight children, have been killed by American drone strikes since 2002. An attack earlier this year killed accidentally killed an innocent teen. The parliament of Yemen has called for an end of American drone strikes, citing the deaths of many innocent Yemeni people. However, the Yemeni Government, especially President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, support the use of Autonomous Weapon Systems. The Yemeni Government has cooperated with the United States Government to track down terrorists and eliminate terrorist targets using drones.

The United Nations has not yet taken a hard stance on the issue of Autonomous Weapon Systems. The United Nations voted to allow nations to continue to use and explore using AWS. However, the UN did state that governments need to be transparent on Drone and other AWS use, but it was not stated how that would be regulated.

The Republic of Yemen has been involved with the use of Autonomous Weapon Systems. This is an issue that will continue to grow as the use of AWS becomes more prominent and mainstream. The Republic of Yemen believes that the policies surrounding the use of AWS should change over time. Throughout the short time AWS has been around, issues surrounding AWS have changed and so should the answers. Thus, the United Nations should not make a pre-emptive position on AWS and should gradually change policy, as it is too early to truly know the impacts AWS can have.

Works Cited

"Analysis: What next for Yemen as Death Toll from Confirmed US Drone Strikes Hits 424, including 8 Children – The Bureau of Investigative Journalism." The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

"United Nations Official Document." UN News Center. UN. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Zimbabwe
Delegate Name: Alex Martin
School: Forest Hills Central High School

Over recent years, militaries around the world have made great progress developing both partially- and completely-autonomous weapons systems, machines that can identify, aim at, and destroy a target without human input. Though these weapons are feared for their potential inability to distinguish between military and civilian targets, they also present opportunities for nations and organizations to ensure their individual safety from outside threats.These weapons, in the form of defensive turrets, for example, could provide for security against military attack in ways human soldiers cannot, and as offensive weapons, could reduce the risk faced by soldiers in battle by replacing humans wherever possible.

When discussing the use of autonomous weapons, it is important to recognize the importance of individual nations’ rights and obligations to defend themselves from both internal and external threats. These weapons have shown clear potential to enhance the security of military compounds, disputed borders, airports, as well as other potential military targets. Anticipating further advancements in this technology, Zimbabwe believes it important that research and development of these weapons should be allowed to continue, as further progress in these systems may help weapons to better distinguish between civilian and military targets, becoming both safer and more effective. In the future, individual nations should be allowed to develop and produce autonomous weapons without the limiting oversight of the United Nations or other international authorities. If safely and responsibly developed, autonomous weapons systems could become valuable assets to governments all over the world.