Using (and Abusing) Polling: The Martens Clause and Autonomous Weapons

Using (and Abusing) Polling: The Martens Clause and Autonomous Weapons

Using (and Abusing) Polling: The Martens Clause and Autonomous Weapons Editors’ note: This post is based on the author’s recent article, “Abhorrence and Autonomy: On the Place of Public Attitudes in the Debate on Militarised Artificial Intelligence” published in...
When the Defender Is the Attacker and Does It Matter?

When the Defender Is the Attacker and Does It Matter?

When the Defender Is the Attacker and Does It Matter? I was delighted to learn that Dr Jonathan Kwik has received funding for what promises to be a most important research project. Jonathan is fast developing a well-earned reputation as a thought-leader in complex...
Beyond Human-in-the-Loop: Battlefield Maps for Drone Autonomy

Beyond Human-in-the-Loop: Battlefield Maps for Drone Autonomy

Beyond Human-in-the-Loop: Battlefield Maps for Drone Autonomy The requirement that a human approve every lethal engagement, known as human-in-the-loop (HITL), is effectively dead, a casualty of the war in Ukraine. The requirement that commanders bear responsibility...
Compliance by Design IV: LOAC in the European Defense Industry

Compliance by Design IV: LOAC in the European Defense Industry

Compliance by Design IV: LOAC in the European Defense Industry Editors’ note: This is the ninth post in a series dedicated to Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) and the questions of human oversight and legal accountability under international humanitarian law....
Compliance by Design III: LOAC in China’s Autonomous Weapons Development

Compliance by Design III: LOAC in China’s Autonomous Weapons Development

Compliance by Design III: LOAC in China’s Autonomous Weapons Development Editors’ note: This is the eight post in a series dedicated to Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) and the questions of human oversight and legal accountability under international...