A Comparative Analysis of the Definitions of Autonomous Weapons Systems

TLDR

The report focuses on defining autonomous weapons systems (AWS). The study aims to identify essential aspects of AWS and propose a value‑neutral definition to guide ethical and legal considerations. The authors conduct a comparative analysis of official AWS definitions from states and international bodies, focusing on four key aspects—autonomy, adaptive capabilities, human control, and purpose of use. The analysis shows that divergent definitions create inconsistent ethical and legal approaches, hindering consensus on deployment and regulation of AWS.

Abstract

Abstract In this report we focus on the definition of autonomous weapons systems (AWS). We provide a comparative analysis of existing official definitions of AWS as provided by States and international organisations, like ICRC and NATO. The analysis highlights that the definitions draw focus on different aspects of AWS and hence lead to different approaches to address the ethical and legal problems of these weapons systems. This approach is detrimental both in terms of fostering an understanding of AWS and in facilitating agreement around conditions of deployment and regulations of their use and, indeed, whether AWS are to be used at all. We draw from the comparative analysis to identify essential aspects of AWS and then offer a definition that provides a value-neutral ground to address the relevant ethical and legal problems. In particular, we identify four key aspects—autonomy; adapting capabilities of AWS; human control; and purpose of use—as the essential factors to define AWS and which are key when considering the related ethical and legal implications.