Geneva: The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross have renewed their call for urgent international rules to control autonomous weapons, warning that the world is getting dangerously close to a point where machines could decide on their own which people should be attacked or killed.
UN Secretary General António Guterres and Red Cross President Mirjana Spoljaric said governments must move faster to establish legally binding international rules for weapons that can identify and engage targets with limited or no human involvement. Their warning comes as artificial intelligence and autonomous technology are developing rapidly and becoming increasingly important in modern warfare.
The concern is not about ordinary military equipment that uses computers or artificial intelligence to assist soldiers. The bigger concern is what happens when a weapon is given the ability to select and attack a target without a person making the final decision.
The issue has become increasingly urgent because military technology is advancing faster than international agreements. Governments have been discussing autonomous weapons at the United Nations for more than a decade, but negotiations have yet to produce a comprehensive treaty.
The latest appeal comes as countries prepare for further discussions on the issue in Geneva. The talks are expected to focus on how much human involvement should be required when autonomous weapons are used and whether certain types of systems should be completely prohibited.
The Red Cross has argued that some autonomous weapons should not be allowed at all. In particular, it has called for restrictions on systems whose behaviour cannot be adequately predicted and weapons designed or used to apply force directly against people. Other autonomous systems could potentially be permitted, but only under strict conditions.
At the heart of the debate is the question of human control.
For generations, decisions about the use of lethal force have ultimately been made by people. A commander, soldier or operator makes a judgement based on available information and the circumstances on the ground. Autonomous weapons could change that relationship by allowing a machine to make important decisions after being activated.
Supporters of military automation argue that such technology could make warfare more precise and reduce risks to soldiers. Automated systems can process information much faster than humans and could potentially react to threats in situations where a human operator may not have enough time to respond.
But humanitarian organisations warn that speed does not necessarily mean accuracy.
A machine may have difficulty distinguishing between a combatant and a civilian in a complicated battlefield. It may also misunderstand behaviour, environmental conditions or incomplete information. A mistake by an autonomous system could therefore have deadly consequences.
Another major concern is accountability. If a machine independently identifies and attacks a person, it could become difficult to determine who should be held responsible when something goes wrong. Questions could arise over the role of military commanders, operators, software developers, manufacturers and governments.
The debate is already moving beyond theory. Artificial intelligence assisted and partly autonomous systems are increasingly appearing in modern conflicts. Drones and other technologies can analyse information, identify objects and assist with targeting at speeds that were previously impossible.
Some fully autonomous military systems are also already used for defensive purposes, particularly systems designed to detect and respond to incoming threats. However, the international community is particularly concerned about the possibility of autonomous systems being used to directly target people.
The UN and Red Cross therefore want governments to act before the technology becomes even more widespread.
The objective is not necessarily to ban every weapon that contains artificial intelligence or automation. Instead, the proposed approach would establish clear boundaries around what machines can be allowed to do and ensure that important decisions about the use of lethal force remain subject to meaningful human judgement.
The challenge will be persuading countries with different military interests to accept common rules. Major military powers are investing heavily in artificial intelligence, autonomous drones, robotics and other advanced systems. They may be reluctant to accept restrictions that they believe could weaken their military capabilities or leave them behind technological competitors.
At the same time, humanitarian groups argue that waiting for the first major disaster involving an autonomous weapon could be too late.
The latest warning from the UN and Red Cross therefore represents a renewed attempt to turn years of international discussion into concrete action. The technology is moving forward, while diplomacy is struggling to keep pace.
The central question is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid: how much control should humans retain when machines are capable of making decisions that can determine who lives and who dies?
For the UN and Red Cross, the answer is clear. Human beings must remain responsible for the use of lethal force, and international rules must be established before machines are given greater authority over life and death on the battlefield.