This thesis examines the profound regulatory crisis lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) pose within International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The automation of warfare elicits concerns of a non–human weapons systems' ability to ensure accountability and adherence to the core principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. Article 36 of Additional Protocol I (Article 36) requires states to review new weapons to ensure compatibility with IHL, but the allocated broad discretion and interpretive ambiguity of the text generates inconsistent enforcement across states. This thesis utilizes a qualitative comparative case study framework to analyze a spectrum of non-autonomous drone systems in Yemen to semi-autonomous drone systems deployed in the Russia-Ukraine War. The findings indicate that increasing levels of autonomy within the weapons systems challenge their ability to uphold legal obligations to the foundational principles of IHL. As a result, this thesis proposes a theoretical precautionary framework to reform the Article 36 new weapons review by conducting more systematic and comprehensive reviews to ensure more uniform applications across states and adherence to the core IHL principles.
Diana Atassi (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: