Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 

Saved Queries

Sign in to use this feature.

Search Filter Reset All

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
Add Subjects Reset
Select Subjects

Journals

remove_circle_outline
Add Journals Reset
Select Journals

Article Types

remove_circle_outline
Add Article Types Reset
Select Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline
Add Countries / Regions Reset
Select Countries / Regions
Update Search
share announcement

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Authors = Jonathan Kwik ORCID = 0000-0003-0367-5655

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
24 pages, 1304 KiB  
Article
Mitigating the Risk of Autonomous Weapon Misuse by Insurgent Groups
by Jonathan Kwik
Laws 2023, 12(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12010005 - 30 Dec 2022
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 6679
Abstract
The intersection between autonomous weapon systems (‘AWS’) and non-State armed groups (‘NSAG’) is an underexplored aspect of the AWS debate. This article explores the main ways future policymakers can reduce the risk of NSAGs committing violations of the laws of armed conflict (‘LOAC’) [...] Read more.
The intersection between autonomous weapon systems (‘AWS’) and non-State armed groups (‘NSAG’) is an underexplored aspect of the AWS debate. This article explores the main ways future policymakers can reduce the risk of NSAGs committing violations of the laws of armed conflict (‘LOAC’) using AWS once the technology becomes more prolific and easily distributable. It does this by sketching a chronological picture of an NSAG’s weapons obtention process, looking first at its likely suppliers and transport routes (acquisition), and, subsequently, at factors which can increase the risk of LOAC violations once the system is in their possession (use). With regard to use, we find that the lack of explicit legal obligations in LOAC to (a) review weapons meant solely for transfer and (b) provide technical training to recipients of transfer constitute serious reasons why LOAC violations may be aggravated with the introduction of AWS to insurgent groups. We also find, however, that States are uniquely and powerfully placed to address both acquisition and use factors, and outline how they can be persuaded into implementing the risk-reducing measures recommended in this article for purely strategic reasons, i.e., even if they express no interest in improving LOAC compliance per se. Full article
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 1477 KiB  
Article
A Practicable Operationalisation of Meaningful Human Control
by Jonathan Kwik
Laws 2022, 11(3), 43; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11030043 - 16 May 2022
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 5543
Abstract
Meaningful Human Control (MHC) has been a consistent key term in legal debates concerning autonomous weapon systems (AWS), but its usefulness as a policy or lawmaking tool is limited due to a lack of clarity on what the concept encompasses. This study engaged [...] Read more.
Meaningful Human Control (MHC) has been a consistent key term in legal debates concerning autonomous weapon systems (AWS), but its usefulness as a policy or lawmaking tool is limited due to a lack of clarity on what the concept encompasses. This study engaged in a thorough literature study of official statements, policy papers and academic papers published between 2013–2021 to determine features common to these proposals and synthesise a workable framework of MHC. The framework identifies five core elements—awareness, weaponeering, context control, prediction and accountability—and many interlocking mechanisms which link these elements together in a causal and chronological manner corresponding to the military targeting process. Subsequently, a detailed commentary and discussion is provided on the individual differences between sources, how specific elements can be implemented in practice by military commanders, and particularly controversial points are highlighted which require specific consideration by commentators and policymakers. The framework identifies concrete and practicable ways commanders can exercise control over AWS and serves as a solid foundation for further legal analysis of commanders’ duties when employing AWS, for future policy discussions, and as a problem-solving tool to resolve important legal questions such as the ubiquitous ‘accountability gap’ conundrum. Full article
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying article 1-50 on page 1 of 1.
Back to TopTop