The emergence of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) raises profound challenges for international law, particularly regarding accountability and the protection of human rights. This study analyzes the legal uncertainties posed by AWS, focusing on their conformity with international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights obligations. The absence of a uniform definition of AWS has created regulatory gaps that complicate attribution of responsibility and enforcement. Three interrelated dilemmas are central to this debate. First, AWS jeopardizes the IHL principles of distinction and proportionality, as algorithms often lack the contextual judgment required for lawful targeting. Second, an “accountability gap” persists when harm results from autonomous actions, making it difficult to assign responsibility within existing legal frameworks. Third, algorithmic bias in AWS threatens fundamental rights, including the right to life and equality before the law. This article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of international instruments, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, showing their inadequacy in addressing AWS-related violations. It advances a three-pronged regulatory approach: (1) a treaty explicitly banning fully autonomous weapons, (2) mandatory human control for semi-autonomous systems, and (3) creation of an independent global authority to oversee compliance. Findings indicate that while AWS provides strategic advantages, its deployment without strict legal safeguards risks undermining humanitarian protections. The study concludes that urgent multilateral cooperation is required to prevent the normalization of algorithmic warfare and to preserve the authority of international law in the digital era (Hoca & Nuredin, 2024).
Ion CEBAN (Mon,) studied this question.