To be counted as operationally autonomous relative to the execution of some given task, a robotic... more To be counted as operationally autonomous relative to the execution of some given task, a robotic system must be capable of performing that task without any human intervention after its activation. Recent progress in the fields of robotics and AI has paved the way to robots autonomously performing tasks that may significantly affect individual and collective interests, which are deemed as worthy of protection from both ethical and legal perspectives. The present contribution provides an overview of ensuing normative problems and identifies some ethically and legally grounded solutions to them. To this end, three case studies will be more closely scrutinized , i.e. increasingly autonomous weapons systems, vehicles, and surgical robots. These case studies are used to illustrate, respectively, the preliminary problem of whether we want to grant certain forms of autonomy to robotic systems, the problem of selecting appropriate ethical policies to control the behavior of autonomous robotic systems, and the problem of how to retain responsibility for misdoings of autonomous robotic systems. The analysis of these case studies brings out the key role played by human control in ethical and legal problem-solving strategies concerning the operational autonomy of robotic and AI systems.
Moving from the assumption that judicial abdication in foreign affairs represents a major hurdle ... more Moving from the assumption that judicial abdication in foreign affairs represents a major hurdle to domestic implementation of international law (and thus to its effectiveness), the present article investigates its legal and prudential foundations, having particular regard to the political question doctrine (or political act doctrine, in civil law parlance). A comparative analysis reveals the threefold nature of these doctrines, to the extent that they operate either as a jurisdictional limitation, or as a non-justiciability argument, or as a form of prudential self-restraint. Each of these aspects will be discussed in detail in order to demonstrate a) that all the arguments employed to justify judicial abdication are devoid of grounds or overestimated; and b) that more viable solutions are available with a view to balancing judicial control and political prerogatives in foreign affairs cases.
The paper offers a re-appraisal of the main arguments in favour of a ban on autonomous weapons sy... more The paper offers a re-appraisal of the main arguments in favour of a ban on autonomous weapons systems, with a view to testing them against their respective counter-arguments and, where necessary, to backing them up. The analysis is mainly focused on jus in bello and jus ad bellum issues.
The Crimean crisis has been recently characterized as one of “bright lines”, where it is relative... more The Crimean crisis has been recently characterized as one of “bright lines”, where it is relatively easy to understand who is to blame and for what reasons. If we look solely at Russia’s incursion into Crimea we could hardly reach a different conclusion. This is only a part of the story, however. The other part is that accession to the Russian Federation arguably occurred with the consent of a substantial majority of the Crimean population – which raises the issue as to whether the principle of self-determination should have some relevance in the case at hand. In an attempt to offer an answer to this question, the present paper will adopt a dynamic approach, which does not conceive of the law of self-determination as a static set of clear-cut rules, but as the ceaseless process through which the international community provides an authoritative response to peoples’ claims to (re-)shape the forms and boundaries of political authority. In particular, the case will be made for a policy-oriented approach, based on the teachings of the New Haven School of international law.
It is no secret that, since the end of decolonization, the principle of self-determination of peo... more It is no secret that, since the end of decolonization, the principle of self-determination of peoples has been going through a veritable identity crisis. On the one hand, inconsistencies and double-standards are so commonplace in international practice as to justify the doubt that the law of self-determination is in fact power politics in disguise. On the other hand, a significant portion of the international community maintains that the principle has exhausted its historical function and applies only to a very limited number of hypotheses (e.g. Palestine or Western Sahara). Yet, self-determination of peoples and its jargon is still well entrenched in international legal life. Against this background, international lawyers are called upon to clarify how the customary principle on self-determination has changed in order to meet the challenges posed by the new global order. So far, however, the various attempts to overcome the colonial paradigm have not led to satisfactory results, being doomed to capitulate in the face of the fact that international practice in this field is either too poor or is inconsistent. The main reason for this difficulty lies in the penchant to conceive of the law of self-determination in a traditional, “static” fashion, as a set of clear-cut rules whose content has to be distilled, ultimately, in the light of accumulated past decisions. I will argue, by contrast, that the principle at hand should be looked at in its “dynamic” aspect, viz. as the ceaseless “process” through which the international community provides an authoritative response to demands for self-determination. My working hypothesis, specifically, is that a valuable contribution to such an investigation may be offered by the policy-oriented jurisprudence developed by the so-called New Haven School of international law (NHS).
To be counted as operationally autonomous relative to the execution of some given task, a robotic... more To be counted as operationally autonomous relative to the execution of some given task, a robotic system must be capable of performing that task without any human intervention after its activation. Recent progress in the fields of robotics and AI has paved the way to robots autonomously performing tasks that may significantly affect individual and collective interests, which are deemed as worthy of protection from both ethical and legal perspectives. The present contribution provides an overview of ensuing normative problems and identifies some ethically and legally grounded solutions to them. To this end, three case studies will be more closely scrutinized , i.e. increasingly autonomous weapons systems, vehicles, and surgical robots. These case studies are used to illustrate, respectively, the preliminary problem of whether we want to grant certain forms of autonomy to robotic systems, the problem of selecting appropriate ethical policies to control the behavior of autonomous robotic systems, and the problem of how to retain responsibility for misdoings of autonomous robotic systems. The analysis of these case studies brings out the key role played by human control in ethical and legal problem-solving strategies concerning the operational autonomy of robotic and AI systems.
Moving from the assumption that judicial abdication in foreign affairs represents a major hurdle ... more Moving from the assumption that judicial abdication in foreign affairs represents a major hurdle to domestic implementation of international law (and thus to its effectiveness), the present article investigates its legal and prudential foundations, having particular regard to the political question doctrine (or political act doctrine, in civil law parlance). A comparative analysis reveals the threefold nature of these doctrines, to the extent that they operate either as a jurisdictional limitation, or as a non-justiciability argument, or as a form of prudential self-restraint. Each of these aspects will be discussed in detail in order to demonstrate a) that all the arguments employed to justify judicial abdication are devoid of grounds or overestimated; and b) that more viable solutions are available with a view to balancing judicial control and political prerogatives in foreign affairs cases.
The paper offers a re-appraisal of the main arguments in favour of a ban on autonomous weapons sy... more The paper offers a re-appraisal of the main arguments in favour of a ban on autonomous weapons systems, with a view to testing them against their respective counter-arguments and, where necessary, to backing them up. The analysis is mainly focused on jus in bello and jus ad bellum issues.
The Crimean crisis has been recently characterized as one of “bright lines”, where it is relative... more The Crimean crisis has been recently characterized as one of “bright lines”, where it is relatively easy to understand who is to blame and for what reasons. If we look solely at Russia’s incursion into Crimea we could hardly reach a different conclusion. This is only a part of the story, however. The other part is that accession to the Russian Federation arguably occurred with the consent of a substantial majority of the Crimean population – which raises the issue as to whether the principle of self-determination should have some relevance in the case at hand. In an attempt to offer an answer to this question, the present paper will adopt a dynamic approach, which does not conceive of the law of self-determination as a static set of clear-cut rules, but as the ceaseless process through which the international community provides an authoritative response to peoples’ claims to (re-)shape the forms and boundaries of political authority. In particular, the case will be made for a policy-oriented approach, based on the teachings of the New Haven School of international law.
It is no secret that, since the end of decolonization, the principle of self-determination of peo... more It is no secret that, since the end of decolonization, the principle of self-determination of peoples has been going through a veritable identity crisis. On the one hand, inconsistencies and double-standards are so commonplace in international practice as to justify the doubt that the law of self-determination is in fact power politics in disguise. On the other hand, a significant portion of the international community maintains that the principle has exhausted its historical function and applies only to a very limited number of hypotheses (e.g. Palestine or Western Sahara). Yet, self-determination of peoples and its jargon is still well entrenched in international legal life. Against this background, international lawyers are called upon to clarify how the customary principle on self-determination has changed in order to meet the challenges posed by the new global order. So far, however, the various attempts to overcome the colonial paradigm have not led to satisfactory results, being doomed to capitulate in the face of the fact that international practice in this field is either too poor or is inconsistent. The main reason for this difficulty lies in the penchant to conceive of the law of self-determination in a traditional, “static” fashion, as a set of clear-cut rules whose content has to be distilled, ultimately, in the light of accumulated past decisions. I will argue, by contrast, that the principle at hand should be looked at in its “dynamic” aspect, viz. as the ceaseless “process” through which the international community provides an authoritative response to demands for self-determination. My working hypothesis, specifically, is that a valuable contribution to such an investigation may be offered by the policy-oriented jurisprudence developed by the so-called New Haven School of international law (NHS).
This paper examines deontological and consequentialist reasons for banning autonomous weapons sys... more This paper examines deontological and consequentialist reasons for banning autonomous weapons systems (AWS), exploring their implications for the meaningful human control of weapons. First, the main deontological and consequentialist arguments leveled against AWS from ethical and legal perspectives are examined with the aim of assessing their respective scope, strengths and limitations. Second, it is shown that these strengths and limitations are largely complementary. Third, it is argued that deontological and consequentialist arguments can be coherently combined so as to provide a set of mutually reinforcing ethical and legal reasons for banning AWS. This is achieved on the basis of a confluence model which prioritizes deontological reasons over consequentialist ones. Since deontological arguments bring out the obligations of special sorts of agents and the rights of special sorts of patients, there are circumstances in which these obligations and rights do not apply. There, the proposed confluence model applies consequentialist arguments that are neutral with respect to both agents and patients. Finally, it is argued that the proposed confluence model significantly bears on the issue of what it is to exercise meaningful human control on existing weapons systems which can already operate in autonomous mode.
Indirizzi di saluto
Luca Bellizzi, Delegato della Generalitat de Catalunya in Italia
Giovanni Des... more Indirizzi di saluto Luca Bellizzi, Delegato della Generalitat de Catalunya in Italia Giovanni Dessì, Segretario generale dell’Istituto Luigi Sturzo
Modera Alba Sidera
Discutono Daniele Amoroso, Jorge Cagiao y Conde, Pietro Ciarlo, Francesco Palermo, Sandro Staiano
ore 14,30 – Istituto Luigi Sturzo (Sala Rossa), via delle Coppelle, 35 Roma
D'Aloia A. (a cura di), Intelligenza artificiale e diritto. Come regolare un mondo nuovo, Franco Angeli, Milano, pp. 89-116., 2020
Book chapter (in Italian).
Title translated into English INCREASINGLY AUTONOMOUS ROBOTIC SYSTEM... more Book chapter (in Italian).
Title translated into English INCREASINGLY AUTONOMOUS ROBOTIC SYSTEMS AND THEIR MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL.
ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH: To be counted as operationally autonomous relative to the execution of some given task, a robotic system must be capable of performing that task without any human intervention after its activation. Recent progress in the fields of robotics and AI paved the way to robots autonomously performing tasks that may significantly affect individual and collective interests that are worthy of protection from both ethical and legal perspectives. The present contribution provides an overview of ensuing normative problems and identifies some ethically and legally grounded solutions to them. To this end, three case studies are more closely scrutinized: increasingly autonomous weapons systems, vehicles, and surgical robots. These exemplary cases are used to illustrate, respectively, the ground problem of whether we want to grant certain forms of autonomy to robotic systems, the problem of selecting appropriate ethical policies to control the behavior of autonomous robotic systems, and the problem of how to retain responsibility for misdoings of autonomous robotic systems. The analysis of these case studies brings out the key role played by human control in ethical and legal problem-solving strategies concerning the operational autonomy of robotic and AI systems. KEY WORDS: Autonomous Weapons Systems; Self-driving Cars; Surgical Robots; Deontological Ethics and Consequentialism; International Law
SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione.-2. L'autonomia dei sistemi robotici come "autonomia operativa".-3. L'(in)accettabilità etica e giuridica dell'autonomia nei sistemi robotici: il dibattito sulle armi autonome.-4. Come disciplinare l'autonomia operativa in situazioni eticamente e giuridicamente complesse: veicoli autonomi e collisioni inevitabili.-5. Autonomia delle macchine e responsabilità (professionale) umana: il caso dei robot chirurgici.-6. Conclusioni.
The 'weaponisation' of artificial intelligence and robotics, especially their convergence in Auto... more The 'weaponisation' of artificial intelligence and robotics, especially their convergence in Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS), is a matter of international concern. Debates on AWS are schematized here as revolving around (i) the identification of hallmarks of AWS with respect to other weapons; (ii) what it is that makes AWS destructive force especially troublesome from a normative standpoint; and (iii) steps the international community can take to allay these concerns. Of particular concern is the need to preserve the 'human element' in the use of force. A differentiated approach to this latter issue, which is also principled and prudential, is introduced here as a contribution towards a legally binding instrument to regulate AWS by establishing meaningful human control over all weapons systems.
Abstract
Purpose of Review: To provide readers with a compact account of ongoing academic and dip... more Abstract Purpose of Review: To provide readers with a compact account of ongoing academic and diplomatic debates about autonomy in weapons systems, that is, about the moral and legal acceptability of letting a robotic system to unleash destructive force in warfare and take attendant life-or-death decisions without any human intervention. Recent Findings: A précis of current debates is provided, which focuses on the requirement that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC) in order to be ethically acceptable and lawfully employed. Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed, distinguishing between uniform, differentiated, and prudential policies for human control on weapons systems. Summary: The review highlights the crucial role played by the robotics research community to start ethical and legal debates about autonomy in weapons systems. A concise overview is provided of the main concerns emerging in those early debates: respect of the laws of war, responsibility ascription issues, violation of the human dignity of potential victims of autonomous weapons systems, and increased risks for global stability. It is pointed out that these various concerns have been jointly taken to support the idea that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC). Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed. Finally, it is emphasized that the MHC idea looms large on shared control policies to adopt in other ethically and legally sensitive application domains for robotics and artificial intelligence.
Keywords: Autonomous weapons systems, Roboethics, International humanitarian law, Human-robot shared control, Meaningful human control
Dieser Text legt den Fokus auf drei Technologien, die die Konturen der Kriegsführung radikal neu... more Dieser Text legt den Fokus auf drei Technologien, die die Konturen der Kriegsführung radikal neu zeichnen: bewaffnete Drohnen, Cyberwaffen und autonome Waffensysteme.
The present ICRAC Report contributes to move forward the debate on Meaning Human Control (MHC) of... more The present ICRAC Report contributes to move forward the debate on Meaning Human Control (MHC) of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) (i) by filling the MHC placeholder with more precise contents, and (ii) by identifying on this basis some key aspects of any legal instrument enshrining the MHC requirement (such as, e.g., a Protocol VI to the CCW).
Uploads
Papers by Daniele Amoroso
Against this background, international lawyers are called upon to clarify how the customary principle on self-determination has changed in order to meet the challenges posed by the new global order. So far, however, the various attempts to overcome the colonial paradigm have not led to satisfactory results, being doomed to capitulate in the face of the fact that international practice in this field is either too poor or is inconsistent.
The main reason for this difficulty lies in the penchant to conceive of the law of self-determination in a traditional, “static” fashion, as a set of clear-cut rules whose content has to be distilled, ultimately, in the light of accumulated past decisions. I will argue, by contrast, that the principle at hand should be looked at in its “dynamic” aspect, viz. as the ceaseless “process” through which the international community provides an authoritative response to demands for self-determination. My working hypothesis, specifically, is that a valuable contribution to such an investigation may be offered by the policy-oriented jurisprudence developed by the so-called New Haven School of international law (NHS).
Against this background, international lawyers are called upon to clarify how the customary principle on self-determination has changed in order to meet the challenges posed by the new global order. So far, however, the various attempts to overcome the colonial paradigm have not led to satisfactory results, being doomed to capitulate in the face of the fact that international practice in this field is either too poor or is inconsistent.
The main reason for this difficulty lies in the penchant to conceive of the law of self-determination in a traditional, “static” fashion, as a set of clear-cut rules whose content has to be distilled, ultimately, in the light of accumulated past decisions. I will argue, by contrast, that the principle at hand should be looked at in its “dynamic” aspect, viz. as the ceaseless “process” through which the international community provides an authoritative response to demands for self-determination. My working hypothesis, specifically, is that a valuable contribution to such an investigation may be offered by the policy-oriented jurisprudence developed by the so-called New Haven School of international law (NHS).
Luca Bellizzi, Delegato della Generalitat de Catalunya in Italia
Giovanni Dessì, Segretario generale dell’Istituto Luigi Sturzo
Modera
Alba Sidera
Discutono
Daniele Amoroso, Jorge Cagiao y Conde, Pietro Ciarlo, Francesco Palermo, Sandro Staiano
ore 14,30 – Istituto Luigi Sturzo (Sala Rossa), via delle Coppelle, 35 Roma
Title translated into English INCREASINGLY AUTONOMOUS ROBOTIC SYSTEMS AND THEIR MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL.
ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH: To be counted as operationally autonomous relative to the execution of some given task, a robotic system must be capable of performing that task without any human intervention after its activation. Recent progress in the fields of robotics and AI paved the way to robots autonomously performing tasks that may significantly affect individual and collective interests that are worthy of protection from both ethical and legal perspectives. The present contribution provides an overview of ensuing normative problems and identifies some ethically and legally grounded solutions to them. To this end, three case studies are more closely scrutinized: increasingly autonomous weapons systems, vehicles, and surgical robots. These exemplary cases are used to illustrate, respectively, the ground problem of whether we want to grant certain forms of autonomy to robotic systems, the problem of selecting appropriate ethical policies to control the behavior of autonomous robotic systems, and the problem of how to retain responsibility for misdoings of autonomous robotic systems. The analysis of these case studies brings out the key role played by human control in ethical and legal problem-solving strategies concerning the operational autonomy of robotic and AI systems.
KEY WORDS: Autonomous Weapons Systems; Self-driving Cars; Surgical Robots; Deontological Ethics and Consequentialism; International Law
SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione.-2. L'autonomia dei sistemi robotici come "autonomia operativa".-3. L'(in)accettabilità etica e giuridica dell'autonomia nei sistemi robotici: il dibattito sulle armi autonome.-4. Come disciplinare l'autonomia operativa in situazioni eticamente e giuridicamente complesse: veicoli autonomi e collisioni inevitabili.-5. Autonomia delle macchine e responsabilità (professionale) umana: il caso dei robot chirurgici.-6. Conclusioni.
Purpose of Review: To provide readers with a compact account of ongoing academic and diplomatic debates about autonomy in weapons systems, that is, about the moral and legal acceptability of letting a robotic system to unleash destructive force in warfare and take attendant life-or-death decisions without any human intervention.
Recent Findings: A précis of current debates is provided, which focuses on the requirement that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC) in order to be ethically acceptable and lawfully employed. Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed, distinguishing between uniform, differentiated, and prudential policies for human control on weapons systems.
Summary: The review highlights the crucial role played by the robotics research community to start ethical and legal debates about autonomy in weapons systems. A concise overview is provided of the main concerns emerging in those early debates: respect of the laws of war, responsibility ascription issues, violation of the human dignity of potential victims of autonomous weapons systems, and increased risks for global stability. It is pointed out that these various concerns have been jointly taken to support the idea that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC). Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed. Finally, it is emphasized that the MHC idea looms large on shared control policies to adopt in other ethically and legally sensitive application domains for robotics and artificial intelligence.
Keywords: Autonomous weapons systems, Roboethics, International humanitarian law, Human-robot shared control, Meaningful human control