digitallawJournal of Digital Technologies and LawJournal of Digital Technologies and Law2949-2483Kazan Innovative University named after V. G. Timiryasov10.21202/jdtl.2023.19mgreoydigitallaw-188Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИAI-Based Autonomous Weapons and Individual Criminal Responsibility Under the Rome StatuteАвтономное вооружение на основе искусственного интеллекта и индивидуальная уголовная ответственность согласно Римскому статутуhttps://orcid.org/0009-0006-7501-0782ХасанФ. М.HassanF. M.

Фарид Мохд Хасан – доктор наук, старший преподаватель факультета шариата и права

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57222041043  

Google Scholar ID:  

Бандар Бару Нилаи, 71800 Нилаи, Негри-Сембилан

Fareed Mohd Hassan – PhD, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Syariah and Law

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57222041043 

Google Scholar ID:

Bandar Baru Nilai, 71800 Nilai, Negeri Sembilan

fareed@usim.edu.myhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2659-9309ОсманН. Д.OsmanN. D.

Нур Джухаида Осман – доктор наук, старший преподаватель факультета шариата и права

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57226308331

Web of Science Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/AAT-6652-2021

Google Scholar ID:

Бандар Бару Нилаи, 71800 Нилаи, Негри-Сембилан

Noor Dzuhaidah Osman – PhD, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Syariah and Law

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57226308331

Web of Science Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/AAT-6652-2021

Google Scholar ID:

Bandar Baru Nilai, 71800 Nilai, Negeri Sembilan

noordzuhaidah@usim.edu.myИсламский научный университет Малайзии НилаиМалайзияUniversiti Sains Islam Malaysia NilaiMalaysia20232006202312464–480Copyright © Hassan F.M., Osman N.D., 20232023Хасан Ф.М., Осман Н.Д.Hassan F.M., Osman N.D.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.lawjournal.digital/jour/article/view/188Objective

Objective: international law obligates states to prosecute those who have violated laws in armed conflicts, particularly when the international community now has International Criminal Court (ICC).

That is why the aim of the paper is to discover the responsibility for the crimes made with the use of AI-based autonomous vehicles in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Methods

Methods: doctrinal analysis allowed to research the positions of experts on the responsibility for the crimes made with the use of AI-based autonomous vehicles in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the ICC.  

Results

Results: this paper argues that the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction over natural persons who allegedly have committed the crimes under its jurisdiction, as compared to autonomous weapons. This paper argues that the persons who facilitate the commission of the alleged crimes are highly likely to be criminally responsible for providing means for the alleged crimes to be committed by AI-based autonomous weapons under Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute and concludes that the Rome Statute provides a solution even to AI-based autonomous weapons.

Scientific novelty

Scientific novelty: this paper addresses to the highly relevant issues of the responsibility for the crimes made with the use of AI-based autonomous vehicles in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Practical significance

Practical significance: the results achieved in the paper can be used in regulation design for AI-based autonomous weapons. It can also be used as a basis for the future research in the sphere of liability of AI-based autonomous weapons and AI in general

Цель

Цель: международное право обязывает государства преследовать лиц, нарушивших закон в ходе вооруженных конфликтов, чему способствовало создание Международного уголовного суда. Цель данной статьи – рассмотрение ответственности за преступления, совершенные с использованием автономных устройств на основе искусственного интеллекта, согласно положениям Римского статута Международного уголовного суда.

Методы

Методы: доктринальный анализ позволил изучить позиции экспертов по вопросу ответственности за преступления, совершенные с использованием автономных устройств на основе искусственного интеллекта, согласно положениям Римского статута Международного уголовного суда.

Результаты

Результаты: в работе показано, что Международный уголовный суд может отправлять правосудие только в отношении физических лиц, предположительно совершивших преступления в рамках его юрисдикции, но не в отношении автономных вооружений. В статье утверждается, что лица, способствовавшие совершению предполагаемых преступлений, будут, вероятно, нести уголовную ответственность за предоставление средств для совершения предполагаемых преступлений автономными вооружениями на основе искусственного интеллекта согласно статье 25(3)(c) Римского статута. Авторы приходят к выводу, что Римский статут дает решение относительно автономного вооружения на основе искусственного интеллекта.

Научная новизна

Научная новизна: в статье изучены актуальные вопросы, связанные с ответственностью за преступления, совершенные с использованием автономных устройств на основе искусственного интеллекта, согласно положениям Римского статута Международного уголовного суда.

Практическая значимость

Практическая значимость: результаты работы могут быть использованы при разработке регулирования автономного вооружения на основе искусственного интеллекта, а также служить основой для будущих исследований в сфере ответственности за использование как автономных вооружений на основе искусственного интеллекта, так и искусственного интеллекта в целом.

Автономное вооружениевойнавооруженный конфликтискусственный интеллектМеждународный уголовный судправоРимский статутробототехникауголовная ответственностьцифровые технологииArmed conflictArtificial intelligenceAutonomous weaponsCriminal liabilityDigital technologiesInternational criminal courtlawroboticsRome StatutewarReferencesAmbos, K. (2016). Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility. In O. Triffterer, & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (3rd ed.). Nomos.Ambos, K. (2016). Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility. In O. Triffterer, & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (3rd ed.). Nomos.Amoroso, D., & Tamburrini, G. (2021). In Search of the ‘Human Element’: International Debates on Regulating Autonomous Weapons Systems. The International Spectator, 56(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2020.1864995Amoroso, D., & Tamburrini, G. (2021). In Search of the ‘Human Element’: International Debates on Regulating Autonomous Weapons Systems. The International Spectator, 56(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2020.1864995Bantekas, I. (2022). Punishment in Warfare and the Application of Law. In Principles of Direct and Superior Responsibility in International Humanitarian Law (pp. 1–37). Manchester UP.Bantekas, I. (2022). Punishment in Warfare and the Application of Law. In Principles of Direct and Superior Responsibility in International Humanitarian Law (pp. 1–37). Manchester UP.Bartneck, C., Lütge, C., Wagner, A., & Welsh, S. (2021). Military Uses of AI BT. In An Introduction to Ethics in Robotics and AI (pp. 93–99). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4_11Bartneck, C., Lütge, C., Wagner, A., & Welsh, S. (2021). Military Uses of AI BT. In An Introduction to Ethics in Robotics and AI (pp. 93–99). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4_11Burgess, A. (2017). The Executive Guide to Artificial Intelligence: How to Identify and Implement Applications for AI in Your Organization. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63820-1Burgess, A. (2017). The Executive Guide to Artificial Intelligence: How to Identify and Implement Applications for AI in Your Organization. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63820-1Ekelhof, M. A. (2017). Complications of a Common Language: Why It Is So Hard to Talk About Autonomous Weapons. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 22(2), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krw029Ekelhof, M. A. (2017). Complications of a Common Language: Why It Is So Hard to Talk About Autonomous Weapons. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 22(2), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krw029Fennell, J. (2019). Fighting the People’s War: The British and Commonwealth Armies and the Second World War. CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139380881Fennell, J. (2019). Fighting the People’s War: The British and Commonwealth Armies and the Second World War. CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139380881Gunawan, Y., Anggriawan, M. H. A. R., & Putro, T. A. (2022). Command Responsibility of Autonomous weapons under International Humanitarian Law. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2139906. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2139906Gunawan, Y., Anggriawan, M. H. A. R., & Putro, T. A. (2022). Command Responsibility of Autonomous weapons under International Humanitarian Law. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2139906. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2139906Hareth, B., & Evans, N. G. (2023). Make Them Rare or Make Them Care. In D. Schoeni & T. Vestner (Eds.), Ethical Dilemmas in the Global Defense Industry (pp. 217–236). OUP.Hareth, B., & Evans, N. G. (2023). Make Them Rare or Make Them Care. In D. Schoeni & T. Vestner (Eds.), Ethical Dilemmas in the Global Defense Industry (pp. 217–236). OUP.Hassan, F. M., & Osman, N. D. (2019). The Obligation to Prosecute Heads of State Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Customary International Law: The African And United States’ Perspectives. MJSL, 7(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.33102/mjsl.v7i1.112Hassan, F. M., & Osman, N. D. (2019). The Obligation to Prosecute Heads of State Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Customary International Law: The African And United States’ Perspectives. MJSL, 7(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.33102/mjsl.v7i1.112Horowitz, M. C. (2019). When Speed Kills: Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Deterrence and Stability. Journal of Strategic Studies, 42(6), 764–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2019.1621174Horowitz, M. C. (2019). When Speed Kills: Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Deterrence and Stability. Journal of Strategic Studies, 42(6), 764–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2019.1621174Human Rights Watch. (2020). Stop Killer Robots: Country Positions on Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons and Retaining Human Control.Human Rights Watch. (2020). Stop Killer Robots: Country Positions on Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons and Retaining Human Control.Javdani, S., Admoni, H., Srinivasa, S. P. S. S., & Bagnell, J. A. (2018). Shared Autonomy via Hindsight Optimization for Teleoperation and Teaming. International Journal of Robotics Research, 37(7), 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364918776060Javdani, S., Admoni, H., Srinivasa, S. P. S. S., & Bagnell, J. A. (2018). Shared Autonomy via Hindsight Optimization for Teleoperation and Teaming. International Journal of Robotics Research, 37(7), 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364918776060Kalmanovitz, P. (2022). Can Criminal Organizations Be Non-State Parties to Armed Conflict? In International Review of the Red Cross (pp. 1–19). ICRC, CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383122000510Kalmanovitz, P. (2022). Can Criminal Organizations Be Non-State Parties to Armed Conflict? In International Review of the Red Cross (pp. 1–19). ICRC, CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383122000510Kohama, S. (2019). Territorial Acquisition, Commitment, and Recurrent War. International Relations of the AsiaPacific, 19(2), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcy001Kohama, S. (2019). Territorial Acquisition, Commitment, and Recurrent War. International Relations of the AsiaPacific, 19(2), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcy001Krishnan, A. (2009). Automating War: The Need for Regulation. Contemporary Security Policy, 30(1), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260902760397Krishnan, A. (2009). Automating War: The Need for Regulation. Contemporary Security Policy, 30(1), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260902760397Lawand, K. (2006). Reviewing the legality of new weapons, means and methods of warfare. International Review of the Red Cross, 88, 925–930. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383107000884Lawand, K. (2006). Reviewing the legality of new weapons, means and methods of warfare. International Review of the Red Cross, 88, 925–930. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383107000884Lokhorst, G.-J., & Hoven, J. van den. (2012). Responsibility for military robots. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot Ethics: The Ethics and Social Implications of Robotics (pp. 145–156). MIT Press.Lokhorst, G.-J., & Hoven, J. van den. (2012). Responsibility for military robots. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot Ethics: The Ethics and Social Implications of Robotics (pp. 145–156). MIT Press.Malle, B. F., Magar, S. T., & Scheutz, M. (2019). AI in the Sky: How People Morally Evaluate Human and Machine Decisions in a Lethal Strike Dilemma. In M. I. A. Ferreira, J. S. Sequeira, G. S. Virk, M. O. Tokhi, & E. E. Kadar (Eds.), Robotics and Well-being (pp. 111–133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12524-0_11Malle, B. F., Magar, S. T., & Scheutz, M. (2019). AI in the Sky: How People Morally Evaluate Human and Machine Decisions in a Lethal Strike Dilemma. In M. I. A. Ferreira, J. S. Sequeira, G. S. Virk, M. O. Tokhi, & E. E. Kadar (Eds.), Robotics and Well-being (pp. 111–133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12524-0_11McFarland, T., & McCormack, T. (2014). Mind the Gap: Can Developers of Autonomous Weapon Systems be Liable for War Crimes?, Internatoinal Law Studies, 90, 350–362.McFarland, T., & McCormack, T. (2014). Mind the Gap: Can Developers of Autonomous Weapon Systems be Liable for War Crimes?, Internatoinal Law Studies, 90, 350–362.Payne, K. (2021). I, Warbot: The Dawn of Artificially Intelligent Conflict. OUP.Payne, K. (2021). I, Warbot: The Dawn of Artificially Intelligent Conflict. OUP.Pella V. (1950).Towards an International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 44(1), 38–49.Pella V. (1950).Towards an International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 44(1), 38–49.Schabas,William A. (2009). International Crimes. In D. Armstrong (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of International Law. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884621Schabas,William A. (2009). International Crimes. In D. Armstrong (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of International Law. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884621Totaro, D. L. (2023). Machine or Robot? Thoughts on the Legal Notion of Autonomy in the Context of Self-Driving Vehicles and Intelligent Machines. European Business Law Review, 34(1), 99–114.Totaro, D. L. (2023). Machine or Robot? Thoughts on the Legal Notion of Autonomy in the Context of Self-Driving Vehicles and Intelligent Machines. European Business Law Review, 34(1), 99–114.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.