MILITARY MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY

MILITARY MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY

Challenges of Attributing Responsibility and the Principles of International Humanitarian Law in the Use of Lethal Autonomous Weapons

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Mohammad saei 1
Mahdi basiri 2
Rasol Hamidpourrazian 2
1 IRAN BAR ASSOCIATION
2 AJA University of Command and Staff
10.22034/iamu.2026.2072732.3221
Abstract
Abstract
Recent advances in artificial-intelligence-driven Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) have raised fundamental challenges to established modes of attributing responsibility and to core principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This research aims to elucidate the challenges in the areas of responsibility attribution and IHL principles—namely, Humanity, Military Necessity, Distinction, and Proportionality. The present study has been conducted using an analytical and descriptive methodology. The research findings indicate that IHL principles (particularly Distinction and Proportionality) cannot be fully complied with by lethal autonomous weapon systems, due to their inherent requirement for human judgment, contextual understanding, and qualitative assessment. Furthermore, traditional frameworks of responsibility (including command responsibility, state responsibility, and individual criminal responsibility) face fundamental challenges due to the impersonal, unpredictable, and morally non-agential nature of autonomous systems. The existing legal system requires a re-evaluation of its theoretical foundations and operational mechanisms.‌‌‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌‌ ‌ ‌‌‌ ‌ ‌ ‌‌ ‌
Keywords
Attributing Responsibility
Artificial Intelligence
International Humanitarian Law
Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
Principles of IHL
Subjects
·      خادم، پویا؛ عباسیان، محمد؛ عباسیان، محمد؛ و عباسی رائی، علی. (۱۴۰۴). بررسی تطبیقی سطح هوشمندسازی آماد و پشتیبانی نظامی در ارتش‌های هفت کشور منتخب با بهره‌مندی از روش تاپسیس (ایالات متحده، انگلستان، روسیه، چین، هند، پاکستان و ترکیه)، فصلنامه مدیریت نظامی، ۲۵(۱۰۰)، 91-128.
·      ریاضی، وحید؛ و بیابانی، اسماعیل. (۱۴۰۳). الگوی تهدیدات فناوری‌های نوین نیروی زمینی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران، فصلنامه مدیریت نظامی، ۲۴(۹۶)، ۵۸-۷۷.
 
               A. Books
·       Bentham, J. (1988). The principles of morals and legislation. Prometheus Books.)  Amherst, NY, USA(
·       Boulanin, V., & Verbruggen, M. (2017). Mapping the development of autonomy in weapon systems. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. )Stockholm, Sweden(
·       Brownlie, I. (1983). System of the law of nations: State responsibility: Part I. Clarendon Press. )Oxford, England(
·       Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. A. (Eds.). (2014). Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT press. (Cambridge, MA, USA)
·       Newton, M., & May, L. (2014). Proportionality in international law. Oxford University Press. (Oxford, England)
·       Pacholska, M. (2023). Autonomous weapons. In Research handbook on law and technology. (Edward Elgar Publishing)
·       Walsh, T. (2018). 2062: The world that AI made. La Trobe University Press. Melbourne, Australia. (Cheltenham, England)
               B. Journal Articles
·       Allen, G. C., & Haines, G. (2022). “Ethics of autonomous weapons systems: A critical examination of the potential human cost”. Journal of Military Ethics, 21(4), 312–334.
·       Bode, I., Huelss, H., Nadibaidze, A., Qiao-Franco, G., & Watts, T. F. (2024). “Algorithmic warfare: Taking stock of a research programme”. Global Society, 38(1), 1–23.
·       Boutin, B. (2023). “State responsibility in relation to military applications of artificial intelligence”. Leiden Journal of International Law, 36(1), 133–150.
·       Chengeta, T. (2016). “Accountability gap: Autonomous weapon systems and modes of responsibility in international law”. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 45, 1.
·       Crootof, R. (2016). “The killer robots are here: Legal and policy implications”. Cardozo Law Review, 37, 1837–1915.
·       Dworkin, R. M. (1967). “The model of rules”. University of Chicago Law Review, 35(1), 14–27.
·       Gaeta, P. (2023). “Who Acts When Autonomous Weapons Strike? The Act Requirement for Individual Criminal Responsibility and State Responsibility”. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1033–1055.
·       Geiss, R. (2021). “The principle of distinction in the age of autonomous weapons”. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 12(1), 45–67.
·       Geist, E. (2016). “It's already too late to stop the AI arms race—We must manage it instead”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 72(5), 318–321.
·       Hartridge, S., & Walker-Munro, B. (2025). “Autonomous Weapons Systems and the AI Alignment Problem. Journal of International” Humanitarian Legal Studies, 1(aop), 1–28.
·       Heyns, C. (2016). “Human rights and the use of autonomous weapons systems”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(3), 526–572.
·       Kwik, J. (2023). “The conceptual roots of the criminal responsibility gap in autonomous weapon systems”. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 24(1), 1–26.
·       McFarland, T., & Assaad, Z. (2023). “Legal reviews of in situ learning in autonomous weapons”. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(1), 9.
·       Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). “Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion”. Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence. Springer. 555–572.
·       Robinson, J. P., & Stephens, T. E. (2018). “Autonomous weapons and the future of warfare: Ethical and legal considerations”. Journal of International Law and Politics, 51(2).
·       Schmitt, M. N., & Thurnher, J. S. (2013). “Out of the loop: Autonomous weapon systems and the law of armed conflict”. Harvard National Security Journal, 4(2), 231–281.
·       Sharkey, N. E. (2012). “The evitability of autonomous robot warfare”. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 787–799.
·       Spadaro, A. (2023). “A weapon is no subordinate: Autonomous weapon systems and the scope of superior responsibility”. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5), 1119–1136.
·       Taylor, I. (2021). “Who is responsible for killer robots? Autonomous weapons, group agency, and the military‐industrial complex”. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38(2), 320–334.
·       Tiffany, E. (2022). “Imputability, answerability, and the epistemic condition on moral and legal culpability”. European Journal of Philosophy, 30(4), 1440–1457.
·       Ulgen, O. (2017). “Pre-Deployment Common Law Duty of Care and Article 36 Obligations in Relation to Autonomous Weapons: Interface between Domestic Law and International Humanitarian Law”. Military Law and the Law of War Review, 56, 135.
·       Winter, E. (2018). “Autonomous weapons in humanitarian law: Understanding the technology, its compliance with the principle of proportionality and the role of utilitarianism”. Groningen Journal of International Law, 6(1), 10–20.
·       Winter, E. (2020). “Pillars not principles: The status of humanity and military necessity in the law of armed conflict”. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 25(1), 10–21.
·       Wood, N. G. (2023). “Autonomous weapon systems and responsibility gaps: A taxonomy”. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(1), 16.
               C. Legal Documents, Treaties & Official Documents
·       International Committee of the Red Cross. (1907). Convention (IV) respecting the laws and customs of war on land and its annex: Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land.
·       International Committee of the Red Cross. (1977). Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I).
·       International Committee of the Red Cross. (2021, May 12). ICRC position on autonomous weapon systems.
·       International Criminal Court. (1998). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
·       U.S. Military Commission. (1945). Trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita [Military tribunal transcript]. U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps.
                D. Online Sources
·       Airsoc. (2020, January). Where hazards lurk, para. 5. Retrieved June 15, 2024, from https://bit.ly/2Tzvcb5.
·       Carter, R., et al. (n.d.). Pronouns. Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved May 20, 2024, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/pronouns.
·       Jorgensen, R. N. (2019, January 14). RoboWeedMaPS: How deep learning can help farmers get rid of weeds. Aarhus University Department of Engineering. Retrieved June 5, 2024, from https://vision.eng.au.dk/roboweedmaps/.
·       Maddox, T. (2020, January 10). PatScan platform detects hidden weapons, chemicals, and bombs. TechRepublic. Retrieved May 28, 2024, from: https://www.techrepublic.com/videos/patscan-platform-detects-hidden-weapons-chemicals-and-bombs/.
·       U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). No-strike and the collateral damage estimation methodology (CJCSI 3160.01A). Retrieved June 7, 2024 from:  https://bit.ly/2Zzzggj.