The use of drones to kill suspected terrorists is controversial, but so long as a human being decides whether to fire the missile, it is not a radical shift in how humanity wages war. Since the first archer fired the first arrow, warriors have been inventing ways to strike their enemies while removing themselves from harm’s way.
Despite a lack of public awareness and public debate a number of governments, including European states, are pushing forward with the development of fully autonomous weapons - also known as killer robots. These are weapon systems that will function without any human intervention.
Imagine a mother who sees her children playing with toy guns as a military force approaches their village. Terrified, she sprints toward the scene, yelling at them to hurry home. A human soldier would recognize her fear and realize that her actions are harmless. A robot, unable to understand human intentions, would observe only figures, guns, and rapid movement. While the human soldier would probably hold fire, the robot might shoot the woman and her children.
The success of the mine ban and cluster munitions treaties show that civil society support is essential to any effort aimed at tackling disarmament challenges from a humanitarian perspective.
Forty years ago this week, Kim Phuc was photographed running down the road away from her burning village after a South Vietnamese plane dropped incendiary weapons.
The proposed CCW protocol poses a threat to the ban on cluster munitions that has been much discussed and should continue to be. But the problem does not end there. The proposed protocol would also have serious implications for international law.
The belief that the draft Protocol VI would have an immediate and significant humanitarian impact requires a leap of faith. That is because little real evidence has been presented. There have been a lot of assertions, but very few facts.
Steve Goose, arms division Director at Human Rights Watch and chair of the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), discusses the weaknesses of draft protocol VI (on cluster munitions) of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). The Fourth Review Conference of the CCW is held in Geneva from November 14-25, 2011.
The Australian Senate has a chance to avoid an embarrassing double standard in its approach to international law. But it needs to decide: does it want to ban cluster munitions or not? Is it willing to stand by its signed commitment to eliminate these indiscriminate weapons immediately rather than do the bidding of the United States, which wants to put off a ban until at least 2018?
The use of drones to kill suspected terrorists is controversial, but so long as a human being decides whether to fire the missile, it is not a radical shift in how humanity wages war. Since the first archer fired the first arrow, warriors have been inventing ways to strike their enemies while removing themselves from harm’s way.
Despite a lack of public awareness and public debate a number of governments, including European states, are pushing forward with the development of fully autonomous weapons - also known as killer robots. These are weapon systems that will function without any human intervention.
Imagine a mother who sees her children playing with toy guns as a military force approaches their village. Terrified, she sprints toward the scene, yelling at them to hurry home. A human soldier would recognize her fear and realize that her actions are harmless. A robot, unable to understand human intentions, would observe only figures, guns, and rapid movement. While the human soldier would probably hold fire, the robot might shoot the woman and her children.
Forty years ago this week, Kim Phuc was photographed running down the road away from her burning village after a South Vietnamese plane dropped incendiary weapons.
The proposed CCW protocol poses a threat to the ban on cluster munitions that has been much discussed and should continue to be. But the problem does not end there. The proposed protocol would also have serious implications for international law.
The belief that the draft Protocol VI would have an immediate and significant humanitarian impact requires a leap of faith. That is because little real evidence has been presented. There have been a lot of assertions, but very few facts.
The Australian Senate has a chance to avoid an embarrassing double standard in its approach to international law. But it needs to decide: does it want to ban cluster munitions or not? Is it willing to stand by its signed commitment to eliminate these indiscriminate weapons immediately rather than do the bidding of the United States, which wants to put off a ban until at least 2018?