On December 13, 2021, the 6th Examination Conference of the Specified Normal Weapons Restriction Convention (CCW) was held.The activity policy up to the meeting was agreed.The conference adopted a new mandate about the autonomy and dead weapon system (Lethyl Autonomous Weapon System: Laws), and agreed to hold a government specialist meeting in 2022 in 2022.
The Operation Review Conference discussed various issues handled by CCW, but the LAWS issue reported the conclusion of the government expert meeting (GGE) three times in 2021.Laws is a weapon system that operates without human intervention, and is often called unmanned weapons and AI weapons.However, it is true that artificial intelligence (AI) may be used in Laws, but it is different from AI's weapon.
Although Laws has no defined definition, the international red cross is a "weapon system that searches, judges, and attacks enemies without human intervention", which is widely accepted.At the 2021 government expert meeting, it was hoped to make recommendations on clarifying, examining, and developing the framework of norms and operation based on 11 operations agreed in 2019.
〇 About "11 operation guidelines"
11 Operation guidelines agreed in 2019 include the application of international humanitarian law, confirming human responsibilities in the operation of weapons systems, collateral of technologies such as AI, and developing weapons systems in the operation of LAWS.It stipulates the application of international humanitarian law and other people in the operation of weapon systems.
This guideline was agreed in agreement between countries that are developing unmanned weapons systems, such as Russia, China, and the United States, and countries that require strict regulations, and after agreement, a diplomatic group is "genius.I evaluated it as an approach.This principle almost incorporated the claims of the "Killo Robot opposition campaign (Campaign to Stop Killer Robots)", which has appealed to the international community.
In fact, in the regulations of weapon systems that do not exist in reality, the measures that have been created by the international community are not enough.Even in Laws, if the regulation is expanded in prevention, the development of civilian technology will have a significant impact, and the development of non -regulated weapons systems will be advanced, leading to worse results.Introducing a limited and focus on specific functions will lead to measures that fix the technical level between nations.In other words, it is difficult to introduce regulations that satisfy the entire international community.
Under such circumstances, the 11 operation guidelines agreed in the GGE of CCW have no target weapon systems in the issues related to LAWS, and the damage caused by it is not expected.It can be said that it is an extremely unusual result in the fact that each country has agreed to comply with the contents of the international humanitarian law.
Even in the GGE held in December 2021, in the discussion of the Operation Review Conference, the US Ryotan, which usually keeps a cautious position in the polymer -management warranty negotiations, aligns the voice, and the significance of 11 operation guidelines.I was able to confirm the importance of this "genius approach" in the results and repeated appeals to respect the content.
However, the discussions on various issues related to LAWS were not able to achieve sufficient results in GGE, which was held for two years from 2020 from 2020.Of course, in this background, GGE could not be held in a complete form due to COVID-19.Furthermore, in some cases, civil society organizations that support discussions were suppressed, and the discussion could not be activated internationally.Among the various things, in particular, in terms of the framework of norms and operations expected in GGE, it was not possible to consolidate opinions at the GGE in December 2021, and at the operation meeting held immediately after that.Isn't this the biggest factor that hindered the progress of discussion?
〇 What are the issues related to LAWS?
It is often pointed out that there is a gap between the United States, who wants to proceed with the development of LAWS, and the Austrian, Brazil, Chile, and Costa Rica, who seeks a prohibited treaty.In addition, it is sometimes explained in a conflict between the great powers who seek "loose" regulations as much as possible, and the non -alliance nations (NAM) who want to stop the progress of military technology.It doesn't mean that such a composition cannot be drawn.However, in essence, there are serious issues (issues) in the issues related to LAWS, which may make it difficult to consolidate opinions between nations.
First, it is distrust of the effectiveness of international humanitarian law.In the 11 operation guidelines, LAWS included humanitarian international norms, such as the International Humanitis Law (Geneva Treaty and additional Protocols, etc.) and the International Human Rights Law.This includes the conformity to the international humanitarian law in the weapon examination (Article 36 review) when introducing a new weapon.
International humanitarian law crystallizes international norms related to armed conflicts, but some countries have not participated in the treaty, while others are unclear to the country.Therefore, in the United States, EU, Israel, etc., moral norms for military use of AI, etc., and promoting weapons development in accordance with it, even domestic application of international humanitarian law has not been achieved and applied.Even though it is claimed that there is, the majority of countries do not disclose the information, and there are too many claims to create a framework for the international humanitarian law, etc. based on 11 operation guidelines.,It turns out that.
However, if the International Humanitis Law is neglected, LAWS itself and the development of weapon systems related to it are often not led by the country, so claims for strict regulation measures.Is an extremely effective means to check the advanced weapon technology.
Second, the pessimism of multilateral measures.Even if you overcome the first problem and proceed to build a multilateral measure, there is a pessimism of such measures itself.This pessimism is the purpose of multilateral measures and issues related to the means.
Introducing multilateral measures due to LAWS issues, at this time, the purpose is to build norms, non -diffusion, restrictions on abilities, or prohibit.Since Laws does not actually exist, it will not be military management or disarmament.
The purpose of introducing multilateral measures here has problems.The purpose of the norm is necessary, as Russia claims in GGE, it is necessary to argue that a norm is needed beyond the current international humanitarian law.If it is non -diffused, one of the countries that allow and develop the technology necessary for the development of LAWS and autonomous weapons systems will be approved internationally.NAM countries fear the possibility of being excluded and oppose this.
The restrictions on abilities are risky to restrict the remarkable technology development in the development of consumer goods, so that each country will be limited to the military as much as possible.And the ban is actually opposed if the basis of its effectiveness is not indicated.If it is a simple prohibited treaty, there are many ways to get rid of it, and technology advanced countries such as China will be welcome, but countries that seriously consider LAWS regulations will actually go around.
In this way, there are many problems with how to set the purpose, and consolidation of opinions in each country is not easy.Even if you agree with any of them, the effectiveness of the introduced measures and the methodology are expected to be intense.For this reason, there are many problems related to LAWS, and there is a pessimism of multilateral measures in terms of feasibility.
Third, expectations for weapon system updates.Laws are often understood as newly introduced in the weapon system.As far as the progress of each country develops, LAWS will be introduced not as a new weapon, but in the form of updating existing weapons systems or improving the control control system.In that case, the interests of each country are mixed over where the existing weapon system and the command -control system are autonomous.Then, even if the regulation is introduced, it will try to operate it so that it will be advantageous in its own country.
For example, even if you think about Senttry weapons, the first South Korea uses the 38 -degree line and deals with a self -destruction attack on terrorists such as the Middle East (exist in urban areas).For the introduction of Western countries, the content to be considered is different.
Since the progress of autonomy by renewing weapons leads to significant results in each security policy, each country will ensure the freedom of development in its own country as much as possible and to restrict the direction of the development of the other party.do.In fact, this problem was pointed out in GGE, and we were trying to discuss the generalization of the weapon operation environment.However, this problem could be understood in some countries, such as Royal and EU, with actual experience.
Due to such a problem, the GGE and the operation meeting in December 2021 ended with a "disappointing" result.GGE could not summarize proposals for specific measures, and in effect on LAWS between 2020 and 2021, there was no progress.
〇 Future issues
During this time, technology development in each country has progressed, and Russia and France have stated that they will promote weapons development using AI.Japan has begun to seriously think about the use of AI, despite the delay.It has been reported in China that weapons such as neutralization technology (weapons that affect the opponent's behavior, not lethal weapons) are being considered.Turkey is actively exporting high -performance drones.This means that even NAM countries can obtain a certain degree of unmanned weapons system.
Under these circumstances, it is also understandable that there are many pessimistic views on introducing Laws regulatory measures.However, "still" Laws has not been realized, and consensus in each country exists for 11 operation guidelines based on international humanitarian law.Here, it is a phase where the international community is discussing the discussion.
that's all