Controlling lethal autonomous weapons systems: A typology of the position of states |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Toledo Campus, Toledo, Paraná, Brazil;1. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Shenzhen People’s Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), 518020 Shenzhen, China;2. Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine Postdoctoral Research Station, Jinan University, 510632 Guangzhou, China;3. Key Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, Institute for Brain Research and Rehabilitation, South China Normal University, 510631 Guangzhou, China;4. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, 510632 Guangzhou, China;5. Department of Neurology, Shenzhen People’s Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, the First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), 518020 Shenzhen, China;6. Cytotherapy Laboratory, Shenzhen People’s Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, the First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), 518020 Shenzhen, China;7. Laboratory Medicine Center, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital (Nanshan Hospital), 518000 Shenzhen, China |
| |
| Abstract: | This paper seeks to understand the potential for robust global control of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). The paper seeks to uncover the predominant views and trends in global decision-making about such weapons systems by way of observing the positions and preferences of States inhabiting the international system as a realistic modality of a more probable normative outcome. Through a thorough examination of publicly available positions of United Nations (UN) Member States, it establishes a typology of varying positions maintained by States and reveals the argumentative rationale for the major positions advanced. This typology results to be far from unified and is composed of the following categories: (1) States that support the prohibition of LAWS; (2) States that support the prohibition of LAWS, but do not support calls for an international ban treaty; (3) States that do not support (or oppose) the prohibition of LAWS; (4) States with “flexible” positions over the LAWS: oppose use or use under certain circumstances, but not the development and production; (5) States that expressed support for multilateral talks, but have not expressed a position on the prohibition or not of LAWS; and (6) States that have called for a legally binding instrument (or legal regulation) on LAWS (inclusive of both prohibitions and regulations). Regulation and human control emerge as factors that have significant value in the equation. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
