Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robots of Just War: A Legal Perspective

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to present a hopefully comprehensive framework of what is the stake of the growing use of robot soldiers, the paper focuses on: (1) the different impact of robots on legal systems, e.g., contractual obligations and tort liability; (2) how robots affect crucial notions as causality, predictability and human culpability in criminal law and, finally, (3) specific hypotheses of robots employed in “just wars.” By using the traditional distinction between causes that make wars just (i.e., bellum iustum) and conduct admissible on the battlefield (i.e., ius belli), the aim is to clarify how advancement of military robotics technology is transforming a 2,000-year-old legal debate on the concept of “just war.” For the first time, legal systems will hold political authorities and military commissioners responsible for what an artificial soldier autonomously decides to do. The paper examines how the new scenario affects both principles of military conduct and notions of justice in resorting to war.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alston, Ph. (2010). Report of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, 28 May 2010.

  • Arkin, R. C. (2007). Governing lethal behaviour: embedding ethics in a hybrid deliberative/hybrid robot architecture, report GIT-GVU-07-11. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology’s GVU Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkoudas, K., Bringsjord, S. and Bello, P. (2005). Towards ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic, AAAI Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics, AAAI Technical Report FS-05-06.

  • Asaro, P. (2008). How just could a robot war be? Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 75, 50–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aylett, R., & Michaelson, G. (2009). Killer robots or friendly fridges: the social understanding of artificial intelligence, Proceedings of the Symposium “Killer Robots vs. Friendly Fridges”, The Social Understanding of Artificial Intelligence, The AISB 2009 Convention. Edinburgh, Scotland: Heriot-Watt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aylett, R. and Michaelson, G. (2011). Killer robots of friendly fridges, AI & Society (in press)

  • Bekey, G. A. (2005). Autonomous robots: from biological inspiration to implementation and control. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio, N. (1991). Una guerra giusta? Sul conflitto del Golfo. Venezia: Sul conflitto del Golfo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio, N. (1999). Teoria generale della politica. Torino: Einaudi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canning, J. (2008). Weaponized unmanned systems: a transformational warfighting opportunity, government roles in making it happens, 2008 American Society of Naval Engineers’ (ASNE) Proceedings of Engineering the Total Ship (ETS) Symposium, September 23–25. VA: Falls Church.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canning, J., Riggs, G. W., Holland, O Th, & Blakelock, C. (2004). A concept for the operation of armed autonomous systems on the battlefield, Proceedings of Association for Unmanned Vehicle System International’s (AUVSI) Unmanned Systems North America, August 3–5. CA: Anaheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra S, and White L (2004). Artificial agents—personhood in law and philosophy, Proceedings of 16th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI 2004, IOS Press, 635–639.

  • Clarke, S. (2005). Future technologies, dystopic futures and the precautionary principle. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4), 121–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. G. (1997). The case of the killer robot. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. (Ed.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster-Miller Inc. (2008). Products and service: TALON military robots, EOD, Swords, and Hazmat robots, retrieved on November 14th, 2010, at http://www.foster-miller.com/lemming.htm

  • Friedman, B. (1986). Value-sensitive design. Interactions, 3(6), 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, K., Paulos, E., Canny, J., Donath, J., & Pauline, N. (1996). Legal tender, ACM SIGGRAPH 96 visual proceedings, August 4–9 (pp. 43–44). New York: ACM Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K. A., & Wolf, M. J. (2008). The ethics of designing artificial agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, M. (2010). Criminal liability and ‘smart’ environments. Rutgers-Newark: Conference on the Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himma, K. E. (2007). Artificial agency, consciousness, and the criteria for moral agency: what properties must an artificial agent have to be a moral agent? 2007 Ethicomp Proceedings, Global e-SCM Research Center & Meiji University, pp. 236–245.

  • Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. New York: Penguin (1982 edition).

  • Karnow, C. E. A. (1996). Liability for distributed artificial intelligence. Berkeley Technology and Law Journal, 11, 147–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, A. (2008). Intelligent agents and internet commerce in ancient Rome, Society for Computers and Law, retrieved on August 15th, 2010. http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ho0

  • Krishnan, A. (2009). Killer robots: legality and ethicality of autonomous weapons. Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, P., Bekey, G., & Abney, K. (2007). Autonomous military robotics: risk, ethics, and design. Report for US Department of Navy, Office of Naval Research. San Luis Obispo: Ethics+Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, D. (2008). Guilty robots, happy dogs: the question of alien minds. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, B. (2006). Computational models of ethical reasoning: challenges, initial steps, and future directions, IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/August, pp. 29–37.

  • Mitcham, C. (1995). Ethics into design. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolis (Eds.), Discovering design (pp. 173–179). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moor, J. (1985). What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy, 16(4), 266–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moor, J. (2006). The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics, IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/August, pp. 18–21.

  • Pagallo, U. (2009). Privacy e design. Informatica e diritto, 1, 123–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, U. (2010a). Robotrust and legal responsibility. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23, 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, U. (2010b). The human master with a modern slave? Some remarks on robotics, ethics and the law, 2010 Ethicomp Proceedings (pp. 397–404). Tarragona, Spain: Universitat Rovira I Virgili.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C., & Ishikawa, M. (2007). Robotic thugs, 2007 Ethicomp Proceedings, Global e-SCM Research Center & Meiji University, pp. 487–492.

  • Sharkey, N. (2007). Automated killers and the computing profession. Computer, 40, 122–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, N. (2008a). Cassandra or false prophet of doom: AI robots and war, IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/August, pp. 14–17.

  • Sharkey, N. (2008b). Grounds for discrimination: autonomous robot weapons. RUSI Defence Systems, 11(2), 86–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (2009). Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solum, L. B. (1992). Legal personhood for artificial intelligence. North Carolina Law Review, 70, 1231–1287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, N. (2007). Spy in the sky. Nature, 7130(445), 808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullins, J. P. (2011). Robotics: war and peace. Philosophy & Technology (in press).

  • Teubner, G. (2007). Rights of non-humans? Electronic agents and animals as new actors in politics and law, Max Weber Lecture delivered at the European University Institute of Fiesole (Italy) on 17th January.

  • Van den Hoven, J., & Lokhorst, G. J. (2002). Deontic logic and computer-supported ethics. Metaphilosophy, 33(3), 376–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veruggio, G. (2007). Euron roboethics roadmap, Proceedings Euron Roboethics Atelier, February 27th–March 3rd. Italy: Genoa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2008). Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weckert, J., & Moor, J. (2004). Using the precautionary principle in nanotechnology policy making. Asia Pacific Nanotechnology Forum News Journal, 3(4), 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitbeck, C. (1996). Ethics as design: doing justice to moral problems. The Hastings Center Report, 26(3), 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegel, V. (2006), Building blocks for artificial moral agents, Proceedings Artificial Life X

  • Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings: cibernetics and society. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, University of Torino, via s. Ottavio 54, 10124, Turin, Italy

    Ugo Pagallo

Authors
  1. Ugo Pagallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugo Pagallo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pagallo, U. Robots of Just War: A Legal Perspective. Philos. Technol. 24, 307–323 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0024-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0024-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation