New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

T-800 ‘Terminator’ imagined by Hollywood movie studios. 23 Perhaps one of the most controversial forms of real world AWS however, is armed swarming drones. 24 For the purpose of this paper, the term swarm is taken to mean a collection of individual but identical mechanical elements (generally taking the form of non recoverable munitions) that can act both individually and collectively. 25 While such technology is still in its infancy, robot swarms, as the name suggests, behave in a way that is synonymous with the dense collections of insects that are found in nature. 26 The focus of the following analysis is primarily legal, with the investigation seeking to demonstrate that while AWS cannot be identified as inherently unlawful (as a result of vast array of potential weapons falling under the category), IHL nevertheless prevents certain deployments. And, central to the present paper is the fact that this includes attacks that are indiscriminate in nature. 27 On the face of it, an armed swarm might be capable of operating in adherence with Art. 48 API. Here, it is simply imagined that the swarm could manoeuvre itself through an environment where civilians were present and choose, for example, to avoid applying force to anything other than tanks. 28 Controversially, however, an armed swarm could arguably also be instructed to engage an individual, or perhaps a selection of individuals, based upon certain characteristics. A swarm might be deployed, for example, with the instruction to seek out and kill or disable all males located within a city aged between 16–55. Indeed, one opposition group has even suggested that they could be used to target individuals based upon opinions expressed on social media platforms. 29 Perhaps unsurprisingly, some observers have demonstrated particular concern over the potential for future swarms to operate according to this latter form of instruction, regardless of the potential for it to operate in adherence with IHL. 30 This is not least arguably violates international human rights law obligations, such as the non-derogable right to life which is codified in Art. 6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 23 See e.g., accessed 14 December 2023. 24 See, for example, a series of videos recorded by human rights organisations in which swarming drones are referred to as ‘slaughterbots’. These can be found here, accessed 31 October 2023 and here accessed 31 October 2023, noting that sophisticated armed swarms such as slaughterbots are not yet thought to exist. 25 See e.g., Hambling D, ‘What are Armed Swarms and Why Does Everyone Suddenly Want one?’ ( Forbes , 1 March 2021) accessed 21 October 2023. 26 Ibid. Note that robot swarms have also been touted as a method for tackling issues such as the decline in natural pollinators, see e.g., Willmer G, ‘Robotic bees and roots offer hope of healthier environment and sufficient food’ ( Horizon , 24 February 2023) . 27 See, Art. 48 API (n 13). 28 The IHL principle of proportionality may of course also be relevant here (see e.g., Art. 51 (5) (b) API). For present purposes, however, further analysis of this is not required. 29 See, slaughterbots (n 24). 30 See, e.g., slaughterbots (n 24). Note that under IHL, each targeting assessment must include an evaluation as to whether a human target is participating in the conflict (or whether, for example, they should be considered hors du combat ), see e.g., Art. 41 API. Any AWS operating in conflict, therefore, must be capable of making such an assessment.

18