Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems Outside Armed Conflict: Legal Challenges to the Right to Life

Abstract

AI has transformed every aspect of human life; one of the most prominent and controversial areas of AI application is its integration into the military and beyond armed conflict. Lethal Autonomous Weapon System (LAWS) is a system that can identify targets, select them, and attack them without human intervention. The use of LAWS outside armed conflict poses serious legal challenges to the protection of the right to life under International Human Rights Law (IHRL). This study examines the regulation of the use of lethal force under IHRL, as well as the legal challenges of the use of LAWS to the protection of the right to life in non-combat contexts such as law enforcement, border control, and counterterrorism. The right to life as a non-doregable right and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life are used as legal standards that the use of lethal force outside armed conflict must comply with principles of necessity, proportionality, legality, and precaution. This research analyzes binding international instruments, including ICCPR, regional human rights conventions, and soft law such as the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, and UDHR, to explain governing legal frameworks. To answer the research questions, this research uses a normative and doctrinal legal research method to analyze legal documents, International judicial procedures, and interpretations of human rights monitoring bodies. The comparison between strict IHRL principles and the technical and functional characteristics of these LAWS allows this research to assess the extent to which these weapons comply with the requirements of international human rights law. The research’s findings show that delegating lethal decisions to LAWS lacks contextual understanding, human judgment, and the ability to assess complex situations, resulting in arbitrary deprivation of life, because it cannot comply with the principle of necessity and proportionality. It also creates serious accountability gaps because responsibility is divided among different actors, such as designers, programmers, commanders, and states, which traditional systems of responsibility cannot adequately address. Use of LAWS outside armed conflict, such as law enforcement, counterterrorism, and border control, poses even more severe challenges due to misinterpretation of data, algorithmic bias, excessive use of force, and lack of transparency. In a legal context, although there are some non-binding laws to regulate the use of lethal force in peacetime, a crucial legal gap exists because of the lack of binding international frameworks to regulate the use of LAWS. Therefore, the use of LAWS in a non-combat context cannot comply with IHRL and poses a serious threat to the right to life and human dignity, without meaningful human control, accountability mechanisms, and clear and applicable law.