5cjxburmr

6.5.9 Autonomy in Weapon Systems. The law of war does not prohibit the use ofautonomy in weapon systems. DoD has developed policy on the use of autonomy in weaponsystems. 1006.5.9.1 Description and Examples of the Use of Autonomy in Weapon Systems.Some weapons may have autonomous functions. For example, mines may be regarded asrudimentary autonomous weapons because they are designed to explode by the presence,proximity, or contact of a person or vehicle, rather than by the decision of the operator. 101 Otherweapons may have more sophisticated autonomous functions and may be designed such that theweapon is able to select targets or to engage targets automatically after being activated by theuser. For example, the United States has used weapon systems for local defense withautonomous capabilities designed to counter time-critical or saturation attacks. These weaponsystems have included the Aegis ship defense system and the Counter-Rocket, Artillery, andMortar (C-RAM) system.6.5.9.2 No Law of War Prohibition on the Use of Autonomy in Weapon Systems.The law of war does not specifically prohibit or restrict the use of autonomy to aid in theoperation of weapons.In fact, in many cases, the use of autonomy could enhance the way law of war principlesare implemented in military operations. For example, some munitions have homing functionsthat enable the user to strike military objectives with greater discrimination and less risk ofincidental harm. As another example, some munitions have mechanisms to self-deactivate or toself-destruct, which helps reduce the risk they may pose generally to the civilian population orafter the munitions have served their military purpose. 102Although no law of war rule specifically restricts the use of autonomy in weaponsystems, other rules may apply to weapons with autonomous functions. For example, to theextent a weapon system with autonomous functions falls within the definition of a “mine” in theCCW Amended Mines Protocol, it would be regulated as such. 103 In addition, the general rulesInternational Law, Mar. 25, 2010, 2010 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 715, 718-19(“[T]here is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armedconflict -- such as pilotless aircraft … .”).99 John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Speech at the WilsonCenter: The Ethics and Efficacy of the President’s Counterterrorism Strategy, Apr. 30, 2012, 2012 DIGEST OFUNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 584, 586 (“Targeted strikes are wise. Remotely piloted aircraftin particular can be a wise choice because of geography, with their ability to fly hundreds of miles over the mosttreacherous terrain, strike their targets with astonishing precision, and then return to base. They can be a wisechoice because of time, when windows of opportunity can close quickly and there may be just minutes to act. Theycan be a wise choice because they dramatically reduce the danger to U.S. personnel, even eliminating the dangeraltogether. Yet they are also a wise choice because they dramatically reduce the danger to innocent civilians,especially considered against massive ordnance that can cause injury and death far beyond its intended target.”).100 Refer to § 6.5.9.4 (DoD Policy on Autonomy in Weapon Systems).101 Refer to § 6.12.1.2 (Designed to Be Exploded by the Presence, Proximity, or Contact of a Person or Vehicle).102 Refer to § 6.12.1.6 (Mines With Compliant Self-Destruction and Self-Deactivation (SD/SDA) Mechanisms).103 Refer to § 6.12.1 (Definition of Mine).329