2021-05-31-斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所-自主武器系统与国际人道主义法_确定人机交互的限制和要求的类型和程度（英文）_72页_1mb

Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: Summary

I. Research Background and Methodology

• SSI is an independent international institution dedicated to research on conflict, armaments, arms control, and disarmament.
• This report analyzes the limits imposed by IHL on the development and use of autonomous weapon systems (AWS), focusing on the required type and degree of human-machine interaction to ensure IHL compliance.

II. Key Findings on IHL Restrictions

A. Existing IHL Provisions

• Prohibited Weapons: AWS must comply with treaties and customary IHL, including prohibitions on specific weapons, superfluous injury, indiscriminate attacks, and environmental harm.
• Conduct of Hostilities: Rules on distinction, proportionality, and precautions govern the use of AWS in armed conflicts, prohibiting attacks that may cause excessive civilian harm.
• Legal Frameworks: IHL requires legal reviews for new weapons and legal advice during operations to ensure compliance.

B. Conditions for IHL Compliance

Three conditions must be met for AWS to comply with IHL:

1. Reliable Foreseeability: Ability to predict whether AWS operations comply with IHL.
2. Effective Administration: Ability to limit AWS operations according to IHL rules.
3. Traceability: Ability to attribute AWS actions to human agents for accountability.

C. Human-Machine Interaction Requirements

• IHL does not provide a general answer on human-machine interaction.
• States must clarify whether IHL is effects-based or requires human judgment in military decisions.
• Four dimensions (personal, material, temporal, geographical) define key questions for AWS governance.

III. Key Issues and Debates

A. Rules on Weapons, Means, and Methods of Warfare

• Personal Dimension: Who bears responsibility for IHL compliance? Can machines exercise legal agency?
• Material Dimension: Can evaluative judgments be delegated to machines?
• Temporal Dimension: How far in advance must IHL evaluations be made?
• Geographical Dimension: What spatial limits apply to AWS use?

B. Legal Reviews and Legal Advice

• Personal Dimension: Who conducts reviews and provides advice? Must legal experts include technical specialists?
• Material Dimension: What technical indicators should be considered in reviews?
• Temporal Dimension: When should reviews occur? How often?
• Geographical Dimension: What environmental knowledge is required for legal assessments?

C. State and Individual Criminal Responsibility

• Personal Dimension: How is responsibility distributed in multi-agent systems?
• Material Dimension: Can negligence or recklessness constitute war crimes?
• Temporal Dimension: When does individual responsibility begin?
• Geographical Dimension: Are there limits to jurisdiction over AWS operations?

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

A. Key Findings

• IHL already limits AWS development and use.
• Compliance requires foreseeability, control, and traceability.
• Interpretations of IHL's requirements vary; states need to clarify their positions.

B. Recommendations

1. Deepen discussions on what IHL requires for AWS use.
2. Share practical measures to enhance IHL compliance in AWS development and use.
3. Elaborate legal and ethical bases for human-machine interaction.

C. Legal Question Framework

The report provides a list of 11 guiding principles and lists 51 legal questions to guide future discussions on AWS governance, grouped by dimensions of personal, material, temporal, and geographical scope.