No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The risks of autonomous weapons: An analysis centred on the rights of persons with disabilities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2022
Abstract
Autonomous weapons systems have been the subject of heated debate since 2010, when Philip Alston, then Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, brought the issue to the international spotlight in his interim report to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly 65th Session. Alston affirmed that “automated technologies are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and artificial intelligence reasoning and decision-making abilities are actively being researched and receive significant funding. States’ militaries and defence industry developers are working to develop ‘fully autonomous capability’, such that technological advances in artificial intelligence will enable unmanned aerial vehicles to make and execute complex decisions, including the identification of human targets and the ability to kill them.”1 Later, in 2013, Christof Heyns, who was Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions at the time, published a report that elaborated further on the issues raised by what he called “lethal autonomous robotics”.2 Following a recommendation by Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters at the UN General Assembly 68th Session, the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, as amended on 21 December 2021, started discussing autonomous weapons systems in 2014. Then, the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE on LAWS)3 was created in 2016 to focus on this issue.4 While the group has kept meeting since then, no clear steps have been taken yet towards a normative framework on autonomous weapons as of September 2022.
In all these years, persons with disabilities – including conflict survivors – have not been included in discussions, nor has the disability perspective been reflected in international debate on autonomous weapons. Only recently has there been any effort to consider the rights of persons with disabilities when examining ethical questions related to artificial intelligence (AI). In this article, we will examine how and why autonomous weapons have a disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities, because of the discrimination that results from a combination of factors such as bias in AI, bias in the military and the police, barriers to justice and humanitarian assistance in situations of armed conflict, and the lack of consultation and participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations on issues related to autonomy in weapons systems.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 105 , Issue 922: Persons with disabilities in armed conflict , April 2023 , pp. 278 - 305
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the ICRC.
Footnotes
*
This article was self-financed by the authors with a contribution from the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots.
The advice, opinions and statements contained in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICRC. The ICRC does not necessarily represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided in this article.
References
1 Philip Alston, Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, UN Doc. A/65/321, 23 August 2010, para. 28, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/690463?ln=en (all internet references were accessed in October 2022).
2 Christof Heyns, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/47, 9 April 2013, pp. 1–3, 5, available at: www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-47_en.pdf.
3 It is important to note that while the mandate of the GGE on LAWS relates to “lethal” autonomous weapons systems, throughout this article we use the term “autonomous weapons” or “autonomous weapons systems” recognizing that, as the ICRC has explained, lethality is not an inherent property of a weapon, but depends on the weapon and the context of its use. For details, see International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “CCW Meeting of Experts on Autonomous Systems: Session on Technical Issues”, 14 May 2014, available at: https://docs-library.unoda.org/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons_-_Informal_Meeting_of_Experts_(2014)/ICRC%2BLAWS%2B2014%2Btechnical%2Baspects.pdf.
4 Timothy McFarland, “The Status of Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law”, PhD thesis, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, April 2017, available at: https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/f1a35baf-3656-5627-bd81-b7d1862e5f02/content.
5 ICRC, ICRC Position on Autonomous Weapon Systems, May 2021, p. 2, available at: https://shop.icrc.org/icrc-position-on-autonomous-weapon-systems-pdf-en.html.
6 See, for example, ibid.; Article 36, “Targeting People”, November 2019, available at: https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/targeting-people.pdf; Anna Turek and Richard Moyes, “Sensor-Based Targeting Systems: An Option for Regulation”, Article 36, November 2021, available at: https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sensor-based-targeting.pdf; Vincent Boulanin, Laura Bruun and Netta Goussac, Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: Identifying Limits and the Required Type and Degree of Human-Machine Interaction, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, June 2021, available at: www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/2106_aws_and_ihl_0.pdf; Human Rights Watch, Heed the Call: A Moral and Legal Imperative to Ban Killer Robots, August 2018, available at: www.hrw.org/report/2018/08/21/heed-call/moral-and-legal-imperative-ban-killer-robots.
7 See, for example, Hayley Ramsay-Jones, Racism and Fully Autonomous Weapons, submission to the UN Special Rapporteur regarding the thematic report on new information technologies, 29 January 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3G2hfdS; Marissa Conway, Smashing the Patriarchy: The Feminist Case Against Killer Robots, Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy, London, August 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/38GwLPJ; Republic of Costa Rica, Republic of Panama, Republic of Peru, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of Sierra Leone and Eastern Republic of Uruguay, Joint Working Paper, available at: https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Costa-Rica-Panama-Peru-the-Philippines-Sierra-Leone-and-Uruguay.pdf.
8 See, for instance, Acheson, Ray, “Editorial: Multilateralism vs. Consensus in the Quest for a Mandate”, CCW Report, Vol. 9, No. 12, 2021, p. 2Google Scholar, available at: https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/ccw/2021/RevCon/reports/CCWR9.12.pdf; Wanda Muñoz and Mariana Díaz, The Risks of Autonomous Weapons: An Intersectional Analysis, SEHLAC, 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3vh7fZb.
9 See, for instance, Gerard Quinn, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN Doc. A/HRC/49/52, 28 December 2021, available at: www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc4952-artificial-intelligence-and-rights-persons-disabilities-report; Wanda Muñoz Jaime and Mariana Díaz Figueroa, “Armas autónomas: La Inaceptable reproducción de sistemas de opresión en tecnología militar”, in Aleida Fernández, Clara Duarte and Dora Inés Munévar (eds), Discapacidad, conflicto armado y construcción de paz, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Centro Editorial Facultad de Medicina, Bogotá, March 2021, available at: https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/79707.
10 Gerard Quinn, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN Doc. A/76/146, 19 July 2021, p. 9, available at: https://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/76/146&Lang=E.
11 G. Quinn, above note 9, p. 13.
12 For more on intersectionality, see Association for Women's Rights in Development, Intersectionality: A Tool for Gender and Economic Justice, Women's Rights and Economic Change No. 9, August 2004, available at: www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Intersectionality%20-%20a%20Tool%20for%20Gender%20&%20Economic%20Justice.pdf.
13 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/6, 26 April 2018 (CRPD), p. 5, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1626976?ln=en#record-files-collapse-header.
14 Ray Acheson, Autonomous Weapons and Patriarchy, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, 2020, p. 4, available at: https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Publications/aws-and-patriarchy.pdf.
15 Paola Ricaurte et al., “AI Decolonial Manyfesto”, 2021, available at: https://manyfesto.ai/index.html.
16 Meredith Whittaker et al., “Disability, Bias, and AI”, AI Now Institute, November 2019, p. 8, available at: https://ainowinstitute.org/disabilitybiasai-2019.pdf.
17 Ibid.
18 For more on positive impacts of AI and areas for future work, see Future Society and Global Partnership on AI, Areas for Future Action in the Responsible AI Ecosystem, December 2020, available at: https://gpai.ai/projects/responsible-ai/areas-for-future-action-in-responsible-ai.pdf.
19 G. Quinn, above note 9.
20 Ibid., p. 4.
21 UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, p. 4, available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455.
22 Buolamwini, Joy and Gebru, Timnit, “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification”, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81, 2018Google Scholar, available at: www.media.mit.edu/publications/gender-shades-intersectional-accuracy-disparities-in-commercial-gender-classification/. Regarding AI and gender and racial bias, see also Shalini Kantanya, “Coded Bias”, Algorithmic Justice League, available at: www.ajl.org/spotlight-documentary-coded-bias. For more on how AI decision-making can lead to discrimination, and for examples in specific sectors, see Frederick Zuiderveen Borgesius, Discrimination, Artificial Intelligence, and Algorithmic Decision-Making, Council of Europe, 2018, available at: https://rm.coe.int/discrimination-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-decision-making/1680925d73.
23 M. Whittaker et al., above note 16, p. 7.
24 To learn more about systems of oppression, multiple discrimination and structural inequalities, see, for example, Egale, “Terms and Definitions: Systems of Oppression and Privilege”, available at: https://egale.ca/awareness/systems-of-oppression-and-privilege-terms/. On disability, multiple discrimination and intersectionality, see CRPD, above note 13.
25 Catalina Devandas-Aguilar, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN Doc. A/HRC/43/41, 17 December 2019, p. 3, available at: https://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/HRC/43/41&Lang=E.
26 M. Whittaker et al., above note 16.
27 For examples and further information concerning possible bias in autonomous weapons, see SEHLAC, Autonomous Weapons Systems: An Analysis from Human Rights, Humanitarian and Ethical Artificial Intelligence Perspectives, 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3lMC8l5.
28 For a comprehensive review of the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of IHL, see ICRC, “IHL and Persons with Disabilities”, legal fact sheet, 4 October 2017, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-and-persons-disabilities. Also see the articles by Janet Lord and Alex Breitegger in this issue of the Review.
29 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Arts 16, 27, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/380.
30 G. Quinn, above note 10, p. 13.
31 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978), available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750013?OpenDocument.
32 ICRC, “Conflictos internos u otras situaciones de violencia: ¿Cuál es la diferencia para las víctimas?”, 10 December 2012, available at: www.icrc.org/es/doc/resources/documents/interview/2012/12-10-niac-non-international-armed-conflict.htm.
33 CRPD, above note 13, Art. 11.
34 Arthur Holland Michel, “Known Unknowns: Data Issues and Military Autonomous Systems”, GGE on LAWS, 10 August 2021, available at: https://unidir.org/events/known-unknowns-data-issues-and-military-autonomous-systems.
35 G. Quinn, above note 9, p. 13.
36 W. Muñoz Jaime and M. Díaz Figueroa, above note 9.
37 Such problems with facial and iris recognition are currently present in electronic devices with such features.
38 The authors have heard first-hand accounts of persons with disabilities who have been denied the ability to open a bank account because of the impossibility of taking their fingerprints or other biometric data, including voice recognition.
39 SEHLAC and Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines, “Moises Vinacudo, de la @COL_SIN_MINAS nos habla sobre cómo las #armasautónomas pueden tener un impacto desproporcionado y diferenciado en las comunidades #indígenas”, Twitter, 7 September 2021, available at: https://tinyurl.com/577hmep6.
40 M. Whittaker et al., above note 16.
41 Paola Ricaurte, speaking at the panel on “Los riesgos de las armas autónomas y el rol de la comunidad científica” (“The Risks of Autonomous Weapons and the Role of the Scientific Community”), Reunión International de Inteligencia Artificial, 27 August 2021.
42 See, for example, UNSC Res. 2475, 20 June 2019, available at: https://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=s/res/2475(2019)&Lang=E; United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Living with Disability and Disasters: UNISDR 2013 Survey on Living with Disabilities and Disasters – Key Findings, 2014, available at: www.unisdr.org/2014/iddr/documents/2013DisabilitySurveryReport_030714.pdf.
43 Juliana Bustamante, “¿Qué les pasó en la guerra a las personas con discapacidad?”, El Espectador, 31 May 2019 (authors’ translation), available at: www.elespectador.com/colombia-20/analistas/que-les-paso-en-la-guerra-a-las-personas-con-discapacidad-article/.
44 Program of Action for Equality and Social Inclusion, Discapacidad y conflicto armado en Colombia: En busca de un relato ausente, Bogotá, 2020, available at: https://paiis.uniandes.edu.co/wp-content/uploads/web_Discapacidad-y-conflicto-armado-en-Colombia-en-busca-de-un-relato-ausente.pdf.
45 Special Jurisdiction for Peace, “Principales estadísticas”, 11 February 2022, available at: www.jep.gov.co/jepcifras/JEP%20en%20cifras%20-%20febrero%2011%20de%202022.pdf#search=6402.
46 Special Jurisdiction for Peace, “JEP imputa crímenes de guerra y de lesa humanidad a un general, 6 oficiales y 3 suboficiales del ejército, y a un tercero civil, por ‘falsos positivos’ en Catatumbo”, 2021, available at: www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/JEP-imputa-cr%C3%ADmenes-de-guerra-y-de-lesa-humanidad-a-10-militares-y-un-civil-por-%27falsos-positivos%27-en-Catatumbo.aspx.
47 A. Hussein Abdel Rahman Hammad, The Suffering of Persons with Disabilities from the Violations of Israeli Occupation Forces during the Operation Protective Edge, 2014, available at: www.map.org.uk/downloads/thesuf1.pdf.
48 Human Rights Watch, “Persons with Disabilities in the Context of Armed Conflict: Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”, 8 June 2021, available at: www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/08/persons-disabilities-context-armed-conflict.
49 Mary Wareham, “Don't Arm Robots in Policing”, Human Rights Watch, 24 March 2021, available at: www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/24/dont-arm-robots-policing.
50 See, for instance, Joe Sabala, “Israel Deploys Semi-Autonomous Machine Gun Robot to Gaza Border”, Defense Post, 1 July 2021, available at: www.thedefensepost.com/2021/07/01/israel-machine-gun-robot-gaza-border/.
51 See, for instance, Marvin Mack, “How America's State Police Got Military Weapons”, Insider, 28 April 2021, available at: www.businessinsider.com/how-did-local-police-acquire-surplus-military-weapons-2020-8.
52 David M. Perry and Lawrence Carter-Long, The Ruderman White Paper on Media Coverage of Law Enforcement Use of Force and Disability: A Media Study (2013–2015) and Overview, Ruderman Family Foundation, March 2016, available at: https://rudermanfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MediaStudy-PoliceDisability_final-final.pdf.
53 Abigail Abrams, “Black, Disabled and at Risk: The Overlooked Problem of Police Violence against Americans with Disabilities”, Time, 25 June 2020, available at: https://time.com/5857438/police-violence-black-disabled/.
54 Ilan Ben Zion, “Officer May Face Charges in Killing of Autistic Palestinian”, AP News, 21 October 2020, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4vc6xswp.
55 Butler, Judith, Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?, Verso, London and New York, 2009, p. 2Google Scholar.
56 Fore more on the purpose and work of RED-LAT, see RED-LAT, Declaración de la Red Latinoamericana de Personas con Discapacidad y Sobrevivientes de Accidentes por Minas Antipersonal y Restos Explosivos de Guerra, Bogotá, Colombia, 17 November 2017, available at: www.cud.unlp.edu.ar/uploads/docs/declaracion_bogota_red_de_sobrevivientes_de_map__reg_y_pcd.pdf.
57 RED-LAT and Humanity & Inclusion, Aportes de la RED-LAT Red Latinoamericana de Sobrevivientes de Minas Antipersonal, Restos Explosivos de Guerra y otras Personas con Discapacidad a la reducción de la violencia en la región de América Latina, July 2021, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3s6f97dp.
58 Ibid., p. 11 (authors’ translation).
59 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cuadernillo de jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, No. 4, 2018, p. 9 (authors’ translation), available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/sitios/libros/todos/docs/cuadernillo4.pdf.
60 Ibid.
61 To learn more about these systems, see the references cited in note 24. On heteronormativity, see European Institute for Gender Equality, “Heteronormativity”, available at: https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1237; Stephen Wood, “Heteronormativity”, Eldis, available at: https://www.eldis.org/keyissues/heteronormativity. On patriarchy and autonomous weapons systems, see Ray Acheson, “Feminist Perspectives on Autonomous Weapon Systems”, Reaching Critical Will, 2020, available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/publications-and-research/publications/14975-feminist-perspectives-on-autonomous-weapon-systems; M. Conway, above note 7. On colonialism (and specifically its link to AI) and current efforts on “decolonial AI”, see Katharine Miller, The Movement to Decolonize AI: Centering Dignity Over Dependency, Stanford University, Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, 21 March 2022, available at: https://hai.stanford.edu/news/movement-decolonize-ai-centering-dignity-over-dependency. On violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, see Margalit, Alon, “Still a Blind Spot: The Protection of LGBT Persons during Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 100, No. 907–909, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r39345.pdf.
62 See, for example, Daan Kayser, Increasing Autonomy in Weapons Systems: 10 Examples that Can Inform Thinking, Automated Decision Research Project of Stop Killer Robots, in conjunction with PAX, December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3uJdRAt; Zachary Kallenborn, “Russia May Have Used a Killer Robot in Ukraine. Now What?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 15 March 15, available at: https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russia-may-have-used-a-killer-robot-in-ukraine-now-what/.
63 Centre for Global Challenges, “The Intimacies of Remote Warfare”, Utrecht University, available at: www.uu.nl/en/organisation/centre-for-global-challenges/projects/the-intimacies-of-remote-warfare.
64 Abigail Watson and Alasdair McKay, “Remote Warfare: A Critical Introduction”, in Alasdair McKay, Abigail Watson and Megan Karlshøj-Pedersen (eds), Remote Warfare: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, E-International Relations, Bristol, 2021, p. 7, available at: www.e-ir.info/publication/remote-warfare-interdisciplinary-perspectives/, citing Emily Knowles and Abigail Watson, Remote Warfare: Lessons Learned from Contemporary Theatres, Oxford Research Group Remote Warfare Programme, June 2018, available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/327070322_Remote_Warfare_Lessons_Learned_from_Contemporary_Theatres.
65 Baraa Shiban and Camilla Molyneux, “The Human Cost of Remote Warfare in Yemen”, in A. McKay, A. Watson and M. Karlshøj-Pedersen (eds), above note 64.
66 Ibid.
67 For more on persons with psychosocial disabilities in war-affected settings, see Hanna Kienzler, Suzan Mitwalli and Meryem Cicek, “The Experience of People with Psychosocial Disabilities of Living Independently and Being Included in the Community in War-Affected Settings: A Review of the Literature”, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 81, March–April 2022, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252721000935?via%3Dihub. For more on women and girls with disabilities in crises and conflicts, see Brigitte Rohwerder, “Women and Girls with Disabilities in Conflict and Crises”, K4D Helpdesk Report, 16 January 2017, available at: https://gsdrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/032-Women-and-girls-with-disabilities-in-crisis-and-conflict.pdf. On deaf persons in armed conflict, see World Federation of the Deaf, “Guidelines for the Protection and Safety of Deaf People in Armed Conflicts”, available at: https://wfdeaf.org/news/resources/guidelines-for-the-protection-and-safety-of-deaf-people-in-armed-conflicts-2/.
68 Human Rights Watch, Stopping Killer Robots: Country Positions on Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons and Retaining Human Control, 2020, available at: www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2021/04/arms0820_web_1.pdf.
69 Jolle Demmers, speaking on “Saferworld's Warpod, Episode 8: Remote Warfare: Interdisciplinary Perspectives”, Saferworld, available at: www.saferworld.org.uk/multimedia/saferworldas-warpod-episode-8-remote-warfare-interdisciplinary-perspectives.
70 Handicap International, Disability in Humanitarian Contexts: Views from Affected People and Field Organisations, Lyon, 2015, p. 4, available at: www.un.org/disabilities/documents/WHS/Disability-in-humanitarian-contexts-HI.pdf.
71 Alice Priddy, Disability and Armed Conflict, Academy Briefing No. 14, Geneva Academy, Geneva, April 2019, available at: www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Academy%20Briefing%2014-interactif.pdf.
72 Bonnie Docherty, Mind the Gap: The Lack of Accountability for Killer Robots, Human Rights Watch, August 2015, available at: www.hrw.org/report/2015/04/09/mind-gap/lack-accountability-killer-robots.
73 A. Priddy, above note 71.
74 Siddharthya Roy and Richard Miniter, “Taliban Kill Squad Hunting Down Afghans – Using US Biometric Data”, New York Post, 27 August 2021, available at: https://nypost.com/2021/08/27/taliban-kill-squad-hunting-afghans-with-americas-biometric-data/; Eric Schmitt, “No U.S. Troops Will Be Punished for Deadly Kabul Strike, Pentagon Chief Decides”, New York Times, 13 December 2021, available at: www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/us/politics/afghanistan-drone-strike.html.
75 María Antonia Sánchez Vallejo, “El Pentágono reconoce como un ‘trágico error’ el ataque con dron que mató a diez civiles durante la evacuación de Kabul”, El País, 17 September 2021, available at: https://elpais.com/internacional/2021-09-17/el-pentagono-reconoce-como-un-tragico-error-el-ataque-con-dron-que-mato-a-diez-civiles-durante-la-evacuacion-de-kabul.html.
76 “US Will not Punish Troops for Deadly Kabul Drone Attack”, Al Jazeera, 13 December 2021, available at: www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/13/us-will-not-punish-troops-over-deadly-kabul-drone-attack-reports.
77 “Condolence payments” was the term used by the US authorities. See Gibran Naiyyar Peshiman, “Afghan Family Decimated by US Drone Strike Awaits Justice from Washington”, Reuters, 10 November 2021, available at: www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/afghan-family-decimated-by-us-drone-strike-awaits-justice-washington-2021-11-10/.
78 G. N. Peshiman, above note 77.
79 For more on the technical characteristics of autonomous weapons systems, see Arthur Holland Michel, The Black Box, Unlocked: Predictability and Understandability in Military AI, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2020, available at: https://unidir.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BlackBoxUnlocked.pdf; Anna Turek and Richard Moyes, Autonomy in Weapons: “Explicability” as a Way to Secure Accountability, Article 36, December 2020, available at: https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Explicability-and-accountability.pdf.
80 V. Boulanin, L. Bruun and N. Goussac, above note 6, p. 40.
81 Brian Stauffer, “Can Algorithms Save Us from Human Error? Human Judgment and Responsibility in the Age of Technology”, Human Rights Watch, 2019, available at: www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/global-1.
82 B. Docherty, above note 72.
83 The text of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction is available at: www.apminebanconvention.org/en/the-convention/history-and-text/.
84 The text of the Convention on Cluster Munitions is available at: www.clusterconvention.org/convention-text/.
85 The text of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2017/07/20170707%2003-42%20PM/Ch_XXVI_9.pdf.
86 On survivors’ participation in the processes that led to the ban on anti-personnel mines, see, for instance, White, Jerry and Rutherford, Ken, “The Role of the Landmine Survivors Network”, in Cameron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Tobert J. and Tomlin, Brian W. (eds), To Walk without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1998Google Scholar.
87 John Borrie, Unacceptable Harm: A History of How the Treaty to Ban Cluster Munitions Was Won, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2009, p. xviii, available at: www.unidir.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/unacceptable-harm-a-history-of-how-the-treaty-to-ban-cluster-munitions-was-won-en-258.pdf.
88 For more on victim assistance in the context of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, see Convention on Cluster Munitions, “Victim Assistance”, 2022, available at: www.clusterconvention.org/victim-assistance/; Markus, Reiterer, “Assisting Cluster Munition Victims: A New International Standard”, Journal of ERW and Mine Action, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2001Google Scholar, available at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol15/iss1/15.
89 Human Rights Watch, Meeting the Challenge: Protecting Civilians through the Convention on Cluster Munitions, November 2010, available at: www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/armsclusters1110webwcover.pdf.
90 These organizations include the Afghan Landmine Survivors’ Organization, available at: http://afghanlandminesurvivors.org/en/; RED-LAT, available at: www.facebook.com/people/Red-Latinoamericana-de-Sobrevivientes-de-Map-Reg-y-Pcd/100066805080563/; the Fundación Red de Sobrevivientes y Personas con Discapacidad, El Salvador, available at: https://reddesobrevivientes.org; and the World Nuclear Survivors Forum 2021, available at: https://nuclearsurvivors.org. For survivor networks around the world, see: https://survivornetworks.wordpress.com/networks/.
91 Their activities included awareness-raising and advocacy on the impact of these weapons on men, women, girls and boys in affected communities, based on lived experience; advocacy activities at different levels to inform and encourage ministries of foreign affairs to negotiate a strong treaty text; promotion of national and regional conferences to discuss the human rights and economic impact of such weapons; awareness-raising among the general population regarding the negative impact of these weapons and the need for governments to negotiate prohibition treaties and ratify them; contributions to victim assistance and risk awareness in affected communities; and advocacy based on this field experience. In addition, during the Oslo Process, survivors’ contributions were fundamental to developing the article on victim assistance and the inclusion of victim assistance as a cross-cutting matter throughout the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This list is based on the lived experience of Jesús Martínez in the Ottawa and Oslo Processes, and the experience of Wanda Muñoz Jaime in the Oslo Process.
92 R. Acheson, above note 8.
93 Davide Castelvecchi, “AI Pioneer: ‘The Dangers of Abuse Are Very Real’”, Nature, 4 April 2019, available at: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00505-2.
94 Automated Decision Research, “State Positions”, available at: https://automatedresearch.org/state-positions/?_state_position_negotiation=yes.
95 ICRC, “Autonomous Weapons: The ICRC Calls on States to Take Steps towards Treaty Negotiations”, 8 August 2022, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/autonomous-weapons-icrc-calls-states-towards-treaty-negotiations.