Chapter 9: Ontological Cybernetics Revisited

AWS have the potential to kill without distinguishing who is killed, as well as can be significantly devastating in their destructive impact, without distinguishing what is destroyed. This is counter to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and its principles of proportionality and discrimination, whereby only ‘legitimate’ objects are targeted, and harm to non-legitimate objects (‘collateral damage’) must be minimised.

Albeit in an emerging embryonic form, AWS exist (e.g. armed drones). They are part of reality, but what is this reality? AWS can be referred to as a technology. Furthermore, this technology comprises a configuration of different elements that constitute the system, though it might be unclear what the elements are and what the boundary to this system is. To add, AWS are a solution for dealing with complex situations intentionally. However, there is one aspect which fails to fit within this sterile description. It has been argued whether an AWS should be regarded as an acceptable form of military engagement and whether it is ethical for a weapon to decide who to kill (Asaro, 2012). Moreover, it raises the question of accountability when there is a failure to comply with IHL with its unethical use, such as the targeting of civilians.