<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=2Gdff1_0wFXKo0100" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=2Gdff1_0wFXKo0100" width="1440" height="907" ></figure>[Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez is a Mexican international lawyer, expert on Artificial Intelligence, a member of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Advisory Body on AI, a Commissioner for the Global Commission on Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain, and an expert on AI for the OECD]Technological progress may aim to benefit humanity. However, it can also bring forth the emergence of new means and methods of warfare. Presently, the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has ushered a new paradigm of warfare, in which machines can take life or death decisions without any human agency.Military AI use-cases range from intelligence gathering, data processing, R&amp;D, cybersecurity, and enhanced armaments, such as autonomous weapons systems (AWS). The latter refers to any weapon capable of executing its critical functions (i.e., targeting, engaging and applying force), without human intervention and which can operate in any domain, whether it is air, sea, land or space.Depending on the sophistication of its AI, AWS can act with varying degrees of autonomy:<ul><li>Human in-the-loop: The system requires human input on the target selection and course of action.</li><li>Human on-the-loop: There is a human supervising and approving the system’s actions. </li><li>Human off-the-loop: The system selects and engages target without any human intervention, which is also referred to as full autonomy.</li></ul>Since 2013, discussions regarding the risks and possible regulation of AWS have unfolded within the framework of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Nevertheless, due to lack of consensus among State Parties, the only relevant breakthrough are the 2019’s principles on AWS. Inter alia, these recognize the need to retain human responsibility, and that human-machine interaction should ensure these technologies comply with IHL (CCW/MSP/2019/9).One central element of the discussions is the level of autonomy that any weapon system should be allowed. Absence of human control over the system’s decision-making processes to select, engage and use lethal force, challenges the allocation of responsibility since a machine cannot be held liable. Hence, creating an accountability gap (CCW/GGE.1/2023/WP.2).Moreover, it is not yet certain whether AWS can adequately adhere to the core principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This is due to AI’s brittleness and/or algorithmic deficiencies, such as biases or misalignments, making the system inherently unpredictable.Certainly, AWS pose several challenges that can only be exacerbated when they operate in large numbers. Such is the case of drone swarms, which have the potential to become weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as will be discussed below.What are Drone Swarms?“Swarming” is a longstanding military tactic where several units converge and attack a specific target in a structured and coordinated manner. Hence, drone swarms refer to large groups of AWS that can share information among each other, synchronize, and carry out their shared objectives with high-precision, coordination, and efficiency.What characterizes a drone swarm is not the simultaneous deployment of numerous drones per se, but rather their capability to connect among each other and act as one. To achieve this, they can use various methods of command and control that can be centralized or decentralized. The first occurs when a human operator controls each drone from a ground station, whereas the latter grants autonomy to the swarm to collaborate, adapt and act based on the information they share.A swarm is not necessarily composed by identical drones. Rather, it can include different units with different characteristics and functionalities. In such cases, different roles are assigned to the various components of the swarm, e.g., some may be suited for surveillance and intelligence, while others may be offensive.One of the earliest showcases of these technologies dates back to 2016, when the United States (US) tested 103 Perdix drones. However, until May 2021 Israel became the first country to openly deploy a drone swarm that gathered intelligence on the geographical position of Hamas militants and relayed this information to ground-based missiles to strike targets located miles away. There is a notable interest in the development of these technologies, with several countries such as China, France, India, Israel, Russia, South Korea and the US developing drone swarm programs. This risks the proliferation of these technologies. The development of scalable drone swarms that can consist of up to thousands of drones increases their capability for harm and mass casualty rates. Thusly, the author shares the view that drone swarms should be considered a WMD (Dresp-Langley, 2023; Kallenborn, 2022; Bodkin and O’Leary, 2022; Mizokami, 2020). Drone Swarms as a Weapon of Mass DestructionThe UN General Assembly’s Resolution A/RES/32/84-B (1977) considers WMD as: <blockquote>“[…] atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which might have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above.” </blockquote>While this definition recognizes that WMD are not limited to chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear (CBRN), it does not really clarify what exactly separates these from other conventional weapons. Thus, to have some clarity on their characteristics and understand whether drone swarms can classify as such, it can be relevant to analyze the International Court of Justice’s case-law.For judge Shahabuddeen, these weapons are unacceptable due to their destructive capability to “kill millions” with a single use, as well as their inability to abide by IHL standards.Additionally, the late judge Cançado Trindade noted that WMD cause unnecessary suffering and their effects cannot be limited to military targets, i.e., they are indiscriminate and disproportionate. As a principle of customary international law, weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets are prohibited (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion) and their use would amount to an indiscriminate attack. On the other hand, the principle of proportionality refers to the prohibition to cause excessive incidental or involuntary harm to the civilian population in relation to the military advantage anticipated (Case No. IT-98-29-T). Notably, an indiscriminate attack may inherently be disproportionate as it would necessarily cause excessive incidental harm to civilians (Case No. IT-95-11-T).This is relevant as drone swarms may not always be used in the context of an armed conflict for IHL to apply, yet they could easily be used to commit crimes against humanity. In fact, it is impossible to deploy any weapon of mass destruction without causing widespread harm. To illustrate, the Future of Life Institute’s short film “Slaughterbots”, depicts a hypothetical scenario where drone swarms are widely used. In the video a proponent of these technologies argues that they could kill half a city “the bad half.” Nevertheless, the video quickly shows how these technologies are being misused to attack politicians as well as civilians, including university students. The victims were being identified and targeted for their political affiliation or what they posted on social media. This shows the possibility of these technologies to be used to cause excessive harm akin to other WMD. Drone swarms could easily meet any threshold vis-á-vis their destructive capabilities. Granted, a small cluster of drones may not be considered as WMD, unless they are equipped with CBRN. Nonetheless, in such scenario the drones would only be a means of delivery and not a WMD themselves.The scalability of drone swarms, i.e., their possibility to vary in size, ranging from just a few units to thousands is what increases their potential for harm. Thus, a drone swarm becomes a WMD when it is large enough to meet any threshold in terms of destructive capabilities regardless of the munition used.Furthermore, large drone swarms will be indiscriminate and disproportionate. As previously noted, once the swarms scale in the thousands, its operator’s cognitive capabilities would simply fail to meaningfully control the sheer number of drones. This loss of control makes the drones inherently unpredictable, causing failures to be infinitely possible and, in some instances, even inevitable. Proponents of these technologies may argue that the AI controlling the swarm can indeed distinguish between military and civilian objectives. However, the author argues that AI’s inherent biases, misalignments and brittleness, makes them unpredictable risking the occurrence of indiscriminate attacks. In fact, given the continuous communications between each drone, a single unit malfunctioning could be catastrophic, as it could relay erroneous information to the swarm, e.g., by mistakenly selecting a school bus as a target, and prompt all other drones to follow its lead and attack the bus.With this in mind, the author believes that classifying drone swarms as WMD is an essential first step with major implications that will be discussed below. Why is it Important to Label Drone Swarms as WMD?Even if there is no immediate restriction arising from the recognition of drone swarms as a WMD, this concept bears a stigma that may deter States from using these armaments to avoid the public’s opinion backlash.Additionally, since the origins of the UN disarmament efforts, especially vis-á-vis WMD have played a pivotal role (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, 1996) to ensure international peace and security.These efforts are notorious as they have been the reason for the adoption of legally binding instruments prohibiting the use of WMD, such as the Biological Weapons Convention (1972); the Chemical Weapons Convention (1992); the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968); and most recently the Treaty in the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017). Withal, Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) calls upon States to prevent the proliferation of WMD and collaborate with the relevant international organizations to achieve this objective.Therefore, recognizing drone swarms as WMD would force States to approach these technologies as such, increasing their efforts to prevent its proliferation, eventually reaching a binding instrument for their regulation and/or prohibition. Furthermore, existing treaties such as the Outer Space Treaty or the Seabed Treaty that prohibit the placing of nuclear or “other weapons of mass destruction” in the seabed and space respectively would immediately be applicable to drone swarms. Moreover, while the Rome Statute does not criminalize WMD, early negotiations saw proposals to include these weapons as a war crime, but were rejected. Notably, article 8(2)(b)(xx) includes a prohibition of weapons and methods of warfare which are inherently indiscriminate, but this is subject to a comprehensive prohibition that should be included as an annex by an amendment, which unfortunately has not been agreed yet.In sum, the categorization of drone swarms as WMD is a first necessary step to ensure their proper regulation and/or prohibition. Without this categorization, these technologies are bound to proliferate, as States will not have any incentive to prevent its development and deployment.ConclusionDrone swarms are the newest WMD. Due to their scalability, they have the potential to meet any threshold in terms of mass destruction. Furthermore, the impossibility of a human operator to effectively control every action of the swarm renders these weapons prone to be indiscriminate and disproportionate.The implications of categorizing drone swarms as WMD are not minor. This classification would force States to approach these technologies as a weapon that needs further regulation. In this regard, the author acknowledges that last October, the UN Secretary General and the ICRC issued a joint call urging States to launch negotiations of a new legally binding instrument to set clear prohibitions and restrictions on AWS by 2026, which could include a ban on swarm drones.</div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Drone Swarms as Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez is a Mexican international lawyer, expert on Artificial Intelligence, a member of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Advisory Body on AI, a Commissioner for the Global Commission on Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain, and an expert on AI for the OECD]