Katrine Nørgaard

In contemporary multi-dimensional and networked battlefields, autonomous technologies are used to support and augment human capabilities in all domains of operation. Recent advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, human-machine interfaces and sensors introduces the possibility to network intelligent, autonomous systems and human operators in multi-domain Battle Management Networks, (i.e Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence (C4I) networks/sensor grids). However, the incorporation of intelligent and autonomous weapon systems in complex military operations introduces both new possibilities and new types of risk, as well as legal and ethical concerns. At the same time, the rapid acceleration and hybridization of the battlespace challenges the classical military bureaucracies and its legal-rational decision-making processes.This paper will address some of the legal and ethical challenges of networked humans and autonomous machines.

In recent years, the development of autonomous weapon systems and so-called ‘killer robots’, has caused a number of serious legal and ethical concerns in the international community, including questions of compliance with International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict. On the other hand, governments and military services hope to develop game-changing technologies, that are ‘better, faster and cheaper’. In this paper, I wish to show how different and competing regimes of justification shape the technopolitical controversy and risk management of autonomous weapon systems. The central point of contention is the transfer of decision authority and the attribution of responsibility in cooperative networks of humans and machines with autonomous functions. As a response to the ‘legal irritation’ of hybrid networks, a new type of ‘hybrid law’ has emerged, mediating different regimes of justification and risk management in contemporary conflicts.