The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in military operations is becoming a reality, prompting urgent discussions about how to regulate it at an international level. The Asia-Pacific Journal of International Law has published articles addressing the necessity and challenges of establishing a new treaty for military AI, highlighted during a recent workshop at the National University of Singapore’s Centre for International Law.
Experts are divided on whether a new treaty is essential. Some argue against the need for a separate treaty for military AI, while others push for it. The discourse among nations reflects this divide, complicating efforts for international cooperation regarding AI regulations.
Proponents of a new treaty emphasize its legal necessity, arguing that the current international legal framework is inadequate to tackle moral and accountability issues linked to military AI. The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that relying on machines to make life-and-death decisions poses ethical challenges, yet no explicit legal prohibitions currently exist against such practices. Additionally, existing laws struggle to address accountability gaps, which complicates determining responsibility for AI actions in conflict.
According to experts, although there are arguments that existing international law could be interpreted to cover military AI, inconsistent interpretations can lead to legal uncertainty. This uncertainty obstructs nations’ compliance with existing laws. Therefore, they argue, a new treaty is deemed legally necessary to establish clearer guidelines.
However, creating such a treaty is fraught with difficulties. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) serves as a prominent platform for treaty discussions but operates on a consensus basis, making it challenging to establish an agreement due to objections from multiple states. Furthermore, significant military powers that are against a new treaty may also resist negotiations through any alternative frameworks, which could limit a treaty’s effectiveness.
Several factors contribute to the improbability of establishing a new treaty. Some countries prefer to exploit ambiguities in international law to avoid formal regulations. The ongoing geopolitical rivalries also create an environment where countries may prioritize military advancements over regulatory measures.
Despite the challenges, experts believe the treaty-making process itself is valuable. It can stimulate the development of customary international law (CIL) by clarifying states’ positions on military AI, thereby encouraging legal standards even through negotiation failures. New treaty texts, if created, could also serve to clarify existing laws while applying reputational pressures on countries that choose not to participate.
The complexities surrounding the regulation of military AI highlight both the need and the considerable hurdles in establishing a comprehensive international legal framework. While the likelihood of a binding treaty appears slim given current dynamics, the ongoing efforts to negotiate one may still contribute to shaping future regulations.
