The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal doctrine regarding the permissibility of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) and Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) under current and future international law. It distinguishes RPAS, which require continuous human intervention and "stick and rudder" control, from LAWS, which are capable of independently identifying and engaging targets. These technologies are evaluated against core International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles, specifically distinction, proportionality, and precautionary obligations. While the paper concludes that neither system is inherently unlawful, it highlights a significant "accountability gap" created by the mismatch between autonomous behavior and human-centric legal doctrines. Rather than supporting a categorical prohibition, which is described as politically unachievable due to the military utility of these systems, the document advocates for a two-tiered regulatory framework (de lege ferenda) centered on "meaningful human control," technical constraints, and strict state liability.
Lina Auguste Braun (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: