Moving Beyond Semantics on Autonomous Weapons: Meaningful Human Control in Operation
| Author | Merel Ekelhof |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12665 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
Moving Beyond Semantics on Autonomous
Weapons: Meaningful Human Control in
Operation
Merel Ekelhof
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Abstract
Ongoing discussions about autonomous weapons typically share concerns of losing control and the potentially destabilizing
consequences for global security. To the extent that there is any consensus among states, academics, NGOs and other com-
mentators involved in diplomatic efforts under the auspices of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, it is
grounded in the idea that all weapons should be subject to meaningful human control. This intuitively appealing concept
immediately gained traction, although at a familiar legal-political cost: nobody knows what the concept actually means in
practice. Although global discourses on policy and governance are typically infused with ambiguity, abstract concepts are of
little use if they ignore the operational context that confronts the military in their application. This article places this intuitively
appealing concept in context, and thus examines it in operational practice. Paying attention to this military practice is impor-
tant as it demonstrates that meaningful human control is not the only, or the best, approach through which to characterize
the human role and govern the challenges raised by autonomous weapons.
Background: global policy discussions on
autonomous weapons
Technological innovation is a key priority of modern military
forces worldwide (Kania, 2017; Tucker, 2017). Not only do
military applications of artificial intelligence and the related
feature of autonomy receive widespread attention in public
debates (Conger and Cameron, 2018; Stewart, 2017), they
also feature regularly in academic debates in international
relations and global politics (Bode and Huelss, 2018; Garcia,
2015; Walsh, 2015). In 2013, the issue of autonomous weap-
ons entered the international political arena, more specifi-
cally, the UN Convention on conventional weapons (CCW).
These ongoing discussions in the CCW have considered,
among other issues, the importance of exercising human
control in relation to the development and use of autono-
mous weapons. To the extent that there is any consensus
among states, academics, NGOs and other commentators
involved in these debates, it is grounded in the idea that all
weapon systems should be subject to some form of human
involvement (Chairperson of the Group of Governmental
Experts on LAWS, 2017; Crootof, 2016). This objective has
been captured by different concepts, such as meaningful
human control, appropriate levels of human judgment and
sufficient human control, of which the concept of meaning-
ful human control gained the most traction. Setting aside
the labels, a closer look at the specifications of these con-
cepts reveal many parallels, implying that the objectives of
this debate are similar and that disputes are mostly confined
to the margins.
The descriptions of human control in Table 1 describe
what is generally expected of humans in the operation of
(autonomous) weapons. They are formulated in response to
a shared concern: the removal of human agency from the
kill chain. Moreover, what all these conceptualizations seem
to have in common is that meaningful human control is typ-
ically defined by reference to the relationship between the
human (operator) and the (autonomous) weapon.
1
The
importance of this perspective will be explained later.
Despite this shared concern and the multiple similarities
demonstrated (in bold) in the Table, international discourse
demonstrates that there is no agreement as to what the
concept (under whatever label) actually means in practice.
The fact that these conceptualizations are typically not
driven by one shared motivating factor is certainly a con-
tributing factor to the continuing ambiguity associated with
meaningful human control. Various motivations underlie the
concept’s development. For example, to some, meaningful
human control is driven chiefly by moral reasons (Santoni
de Sio and van den Hoven, 2018). For others, the call for
meaningful human control is primarily motivated by legal
incentives, such as Switzerland’s compliance-based approach
(Switzerland, 2017); and sometimes it is described in terms
of operational control in military practice (Roorda, 2015). On
top of that, the concept is also regularly related to different
actors (operators, commanders and engineers), subjects
(control over the weapon, over individual attacks or over
the targeting process) and time frames (during weapon
development and/or use). Although Table 1 does not pro-
vide a comprehensive overview of all these different
Global Policy (2019) 10:3 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12665 ©2019 The Authors. Global Policy published by Durham University and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue 3 . September 2019 343
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial