Archb. Tomasi: beware of the increasing dehumanisation of warfare
(Vatican Radio) Archbishop Silvano Tomasi expressed his concern on Tuesday regarding
the increasing trend of “dehumanization of warfare” and the use of lethal autonomous
weapon systems.
Addressing the United Nations in Geneva at the Meeting of Experts
on Lethal autonomous weapons systems, Archbishop Tomasi who is the Vatican’s Permanent
Representative to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva,
commended the organizers of the meeting for highlighting what he called “emerging
concerns around new technologies”.
Please find below the text of Archbishop
Tomasi’s intervention:
Statement by H.E. Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi,
Permanent Representative of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International
Organizations in Geneva at the Meeting of Experts on Lethal autonomous weapons systems
of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions
on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious
or to Have Indiscriminate Effects
Mr. President, Let me first commend you
for the good preparation for this very important meeting, even if the mandate is simply
to discuss in an informal setting emerging concerns around new technologies which
would not only impact the way of conducting war but more importantly would question
the humanity of our societies in relying on machines to make decisions about death
and life. In 2013, this Delegation expressed its deep concerns in relation with
the use of drones and the troubling ethical consequences for users and victims alike.
While in many fields, autonomous technology may indeed prove beneficial to
humanity, the application of autonomy to weapons technology is entirely distinct:
it seeks to place a machine in the position of deciding over life and death. We are
most troubled by emerging technologies of autonomous weapon systems which may move
beyond surveillance or intelligence-gathering capabilities into actually engaging
human targets. Good intentions could be the beginning to a slippery slope. When humanity
is confronted with big and decisive challenges—from health to the environment, to
war & peace—taking time to reflect, relying on the principle of precaution, and adopting
a reasonable attitude of prevention are far more suitable than venturing into illusions
and self-defeating endeavours.
Autonomous weapon systems, like any other weapon
system, must be reviewed and pass the IHL examination. Respect for international law,
for human rights law, and IHL is not optional. The Holy See supports the view that
autonomous weapon systems have, like drones, a huge deficit which cannot be addressed
only by respecting the rules of IHL. To comply, these systems would require human
qualities that they inherently lack. The ethical consequences of such systems if deployed
and used cannot be overlooked and underestimated.
The increasing trend of dehumanisation
of warfare compels all nations and societies to reassess their thinking. The prospect
of developing armed robots designed to engage human targets has the potential of changing
the fundamental equation of war. Taking humans “out of the loop” presents significant
ethical questions, primarily because of the absence of meaningful human involvement
in lethal decision-making.
Mr. President, For the Holy See the fundamental
question is the following: Can machines—well-programmed with highly sophisticated
algorithms to make decisions on the battlefield in compliance with IHL—truly replace
humans in decisions over life and death?
The answer is no. Humans must not
be taken out of the loop over decisions regarding life and death for other human beings.
Meaningful human intervention over such decisions must always be present. Decisions
over life and death inherently call for human qualities, such as compassion and insight,
to be present. While imperfect human beings may not perfectly apply such qualities
in the heat of war, these qualities are neither replaceable nor programmable. Studies
of soldiers’ experiences support that human beings are innately averse to taking life,
and this aversion can show itself in moments of compassion and humanity amidst the
horrors of war.
Programming an “ethical governor” or “artificial intelligence”
to enable autonomous weapon systems to technically comply with the law of war in the
areas of distinction and proportionality, even if possible, is not sufficient. The
fundamental problem still exists: a lack of humanity, a lack of meaningful involvement
by human beings in decisions over the life and death of other human beings. The human
capacity for moral reasoning and ethical decision-making is more than simply a collection
of algorithms. The human factor in decisions over life and death can never be replaced. It
is already extremely complex to apply the rules of distinction and proportionality
in the context of war. Distinguishing combatant from civilian, or weighing military
gain and human suffering, in the heat of war, is not reducible to technical matters
of programming. Meaningful intervention by humans, with our unique capacity for moral
reasoning, is absolutely essential in making these decisions.
Part of the
justification for developing these weapons may be the idea that “if we don’t develop
this technology, someone else will.” The development of complex autonomous weapon
systems is likely out of the reach of smaller states or non-state actors. However,
once such systems are developed by larger states, it will not be extremely difficult
to copy them. History shows that developments in military technology, from crossbows
to drones, give the inventing side a temporary military advantage. The inevitable
widespread proliferation of these weapon systems will fundamentally alter the nature
of warfare for the whole human family.
Minimizing the risks to its own forces
is understandable and legitimate. However, with no casualties or tales of horror from
one side, the domestic political cost of waging war becomes less significant. This
represents an important deterrent to overly-hastened military action, and is a deterrent
that should not be lightly disregarded.
Autonomous weapon systems technology
makes war too easy and removes its reliance on soldierly virtues. Several military
experts and professional, who consider killing people a most serious matter, are deeply
troubled by the idea of delegating these decisions to machines. Obviously these voices
value the potential of robots to assist in bomb disposal, evacuation of the wounded,
or surveying a battle scene, but the potential for robots to completely replace soldiers
on the field remains of grave concern to them.
Furthermore, the delegation
of the human decision-making responsibilities to an autonomous system designed to
take human lives creates an accountability vacuum that makes it impossible to hold
anyone sufficiently accountable for violations of international law incurred by an
autonomous weapon system.
It is exactly these concerns that call for a multilateral
approach to questioning the development and implementation of autonomous weapon systems.
As in the case of actions like the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, it is imperative
to act before the technology for autonomous weapon systems progresses and proliferates,
before such weapons fundamentally alter warfare into an even less humane, less human,
affair.
Mr. President, In conclusion, it is important to recognise that
meaningful human involvement is absolutely essential in decisions affecting the life
and death of human beings, to recognise that autonomous weapon systems can never replace
the human capacity for moral reasoning, including in the context of war, to recognise
that development of autonomous weapon systems will ultimately lead to widespread proliferation,
and to recognise that the development of complex autonomous weapon systems which remove
the human actor from lethal decision-making is short-sighted and may irreversibly
alter the nature of warfare in a less humane direction, leading to consequences we
cannot possibly foresee, but that will in any case increase the dehumanisation of
warfare.