Reconstructing International Humanitarian Law for the Use of Autonomous Weapon Systems in Modern Defence: Addressing Meaningful Human Control and the Accountability Gap

Nanang Yulian; Bambang Kustiawan; Asep Adang Supriyadi; Guntur Eko Saputro

doi:10.33751/palar.v12i1.46

Authors

Nanang Yulian Doctoral of Defense Science, Indonesia Defence University, Indonesia
Bambang Kustiawan Doctoral of Defense Science, Indonesia Defence University, Indonesia
Asep Adang Supriyadi Doctoral of Defense Science, Indonesia Defence University, Indonesia
Guntur Eko Saputro Doctoral of Defense Science, Indonesia Defence University, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33751/palar.v12i1.46

Abstract

The rapid deployment of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) is reshaping contemporary defence strategies and testing the adequacy of existing International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This research offers a normative legal analysis of the relationship between autonomous lethal decision-making and core IHL principles, particularly distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. Combining doctrinal methods with a systematic bibliometric review of 621 Scopus-indexed publications, the study empirically maps the global debate and identifies structural gaps between advances in military AI and current accountability regimes. The findings reveal a persistent accountability gap when AWS operate unpredictably, undermining individual criminal responsibility and victims’ right to remedy. To address this, the article proposes a reconstruction of IHL centred on robust standards of Meaningful Human Control, algorithmic transparency, and the integration of co-active design as a legal design requirement for AWS. This reconstruction aims to ensure that technological modernisation in warfare does not erode human dignity, but remains anchored in human agency and enforceable legal responsibility.

Keywords: Autonomous Weapon Systems; International Humanitarian Law; Meaningful Human Control; accountability gap; co-active design; war torts.

References

A. Books

Amoroso, Daniele. Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Law: A Study on Human-Machine Interactions in Ethical and Legal Decision-Making. Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Horowitz, Michael C. The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for International Politics. Princeton University Press, 2019.

Knuckey, Sarah. Autonomous Weapons Systems and Transparency: Towards an International Dialogue. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Moyes, Richard. Article 36: Key Elements of Meaningful Human Control. Article 36 Policy Paper, 2016.

Roff, Heather M., and Richard Moyes. Meaningful Human Control, Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons. CCW GGE on LAWS, 2016.

Sassòli, Marco. Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Humanitarian Law. Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, 2014.

Scharre, Paul. Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.

Taddeo, Mariarosaria. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Defence. Oxford University Press, 2024.

B. Scientific Journal

Aria, Massimo, and Corrado Cuccurullo. “Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis.” Journal of Informetrics 11, no. 4 (2017): 959–975.

Asaro, Peter M. “On Banning Autonomous Weapon Systems: Human Rights, Automation, and the Dehumanization of Lethal Force.” International Review of the Red Cross 94, no. 886 (2012): 687–709.

Bode, Ingvild, and Hendrik Huelss. “Autonomous Weapons Systems and Changing Norms in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 44, no. 3 (2018): 393–413.

Chen, Chaomei. “Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Field.” Journal of Data and Information Science 2, no. 2 (2017): 1–40.

Chengeta, Thompson. “Accountability Gap: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Search for Legal Responsibility.” Diritto Penale Contemporaneo, no. 2 (2016): 1–25.

Crootof, Rebecca. “The Killer Robots Are Here: Legal and Policy Implications.” Cardozo Law Review 36, no. 5 (2015): 1837–1915.

Donthu, Naveen. “How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines.” Journal of Business Research 133 (2021): 285–296.

Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, and Douglas G. Altman. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” PLOS Medicine 6, no. 7 (2009).

Page, Matthew J. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ 372 (2021).

Sari, Aurel. “Legal Reviews of New Weapons: Article 36 of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.” International Law Studies 91 (2015): 126–144.

Saxon, Dan. “A Search for Meaningful Human Control: Co-Active Design and the International Law of Weapons Reviews.” International Law Studies 92 (2016): 216–252.

Schmitt, Michael N. “Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A Reply to the Critics.” Harvard National Security Journal 4 (2013): 1–37.

Sharkey, Noel. “Automating Warfare: Lessons Learned from the Drones.” Journal of Law, Information and Science 21, no. 2 (2011).

Small, Henry. “Co-Citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship between Two Documents.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24, no. 4 (1973): 265–269.

Sparrow, Robert. “Killer Robots: The Moral Case for a Ban.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 33, no. 1 (2016): 1–12.

Van Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. “Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping.” Scientometrics 84, no. 2 (2010): 523–538.

Wagner, Markus. “The Dehumanization of International Humanitarian Law: Legal, Ethical, and Political Implications of Autonomous Weapon Systems.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 47 (2014): 1371–1424.