2017 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal AutonomousWeapons Systems (LAWS)
Intervention by ESTONIA
Item 6: Examination of various dimensions of emergingtechnologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems, in the contextof the objectives and purposes of the Convention
Panel 3: Legal/ethical dimension
Genf, 14 november2017
Thank you MrChairman,
I shouldstart by thanking all of the panellists for their very informativepresentations, which greatly assist our deliberations.
I would liketo make one comment and to ask one question.
The commentrelates to the observation that Estonia was giving legal personality to robots.Appreciating the need to improve the law applicable to self-driving vehicles,the Estonian Government has commissioned an independent legal study to canvassthe various options for regulation. One of the options indentified by theexperts in an interim report of that study indeed mentions giving some degreeof independent legal capacity to robots. I should emphasise, however, that thestudy is still in progress, and no decision has been made as to whichregulatory model to adopt.
The questionconcerns the ICRC’s focus on autonomy in relation to the critical functions ofweapons systems. This appears to be a sensible approach in that the targetingdecision would raise the most serious IHL questions. That said, Article 57(1)of AP provides that “In the conduct of militaryoperations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population,civilians and civilian objects.” Would this in the opinion of thepanellists have implications for other functions of autonomous platforms? Inparticular, would it have implications for the capacity of autonomousnavigation that might potentially cause harm to civilians or civilianobjects?
Thank you,Mr Chairman!