Navigating The Legal Landscape Of Military Unmanned Platforms From Definitions To Responsibility And Human Rights Presented by: Dr. Kowalczewska Date: 7 March 2024 Agenda - 1. Definitional conundrum - 2. Legal review an ignored compliance mechanism - 3. Targeted killings and signature strikes - contentious methods - 4. Responsibility regimes - 5. Conclusions Definitional Conundrum - Military robots - unmanned platforms - weapon systems – drones - Means of warfare - methods of warfare - Remotely piloted platform (drone) - autonomous (Al) - Human in the loop - human on the loop - human outside the loop Legal Review – Ignored Compliance Mechanism - Article 36 of Additional Protocol II - New weapons. - In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party. Legal Review – Good Practices - Effective implementation is lacking • 174 State Parties - all EU member states are legally obliged • Only 20 States (12 from EU) - are implementing it in practice • Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden - Multidisciplinary and continuous due diligence approach required • Procedure tailored to the specific subject matter • No possibility of „compliance certificate" transfer • Results usually not binding, not public Legality - No constrains on drones per se (unlike nuclear or chemical weapons) - Their use may be inconsistent with different regimes of law, as shown by “global war on terror” • Use of force (territorial integrity, political independence, sovereignty, aggression) - • International humanitarian law (distinction, proportionality, precautions) • Human rights (right to life) Targeted killings & signature strikes • Who is the operator? • Who is the target? How do we identify the target? • Where and when the attack is taking place? Responsibility Regimes - Operator • - Individual criminal responsibility State • Objective regime under ARSIWA • Issue of complicity (intelligence sharing, technological, logistical support) • Proxy forum shopping given US jurisdictional evasion • ECHR and FRC frameworks Conclusions - Use of drones is less legally an ethically challenging than the use of autonomous (Al) weapons - Methods of drone warfare heavily impacted some notions of international law such as right to self-defense or the armed conflict - EU lack common legal policy approaches to armed drones - Legal review of new technologies should be implemented in an effective manner