458 Revista del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos Núm. 2 / 2013 defends the need, before it is too late, “to ensure informed discussion of the issues involved”, that is: “a legal framework”37. 2) Plus, the convening of “as a matter of priority, a High Level Panel on LARs consisting of experts from different fields such as law, robotics, computer science, military operations, diplomacy, conflict management, ethics and philosophy.” This panel was to publish a report “within a year” that would contain various elements including the following: • “Propose a framework to enable the international community to address effectively the legal and policy issues arising in relation to LARs, and make concrete substantive and procedural recommendations in that regard; in its work the Panel should endeavour to facilitate a broad-based international dialogue”. • “Assessment of the adequacy or shortcomings of existing international and domestic legal frameworks governing LARs”38. This is certainly not the only conclusion that could potentially be drawn, as there are authors, extremely renowned experts in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence, who, after analysing the state of the art in this field and its shortcomings, as well as forecasts as to how this technology will develop in the following fifteen years, maintain that the only “the morally correct course of action is to ban autonomous lethal targeting by robots”39, since they are a form of weapon whose capacity to fully adjust to the fundamental principles of IHL cannot be guaranteed. As a result, the State parties to Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (1977) with the technological capacity for and the political will to acquire these robots would be directly challenged with respect to these “new weapons” in Article 36 of the text. The potential prohibition of this type of autonomous weapon would not in fact be a particularly novel approach. In 1967, for example, the Outer Space Treaty provided for ex ante prohibition of the use and deployment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in outer space40. 37 International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts. Report. Document prepared by the ICRC, Geneva, October 2011. The 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva (Switzerland), 28 November-1 December 2011, EN, (31/C/11/5.1.2), pp. 1-53, p. 40. 38 Report of the Special Rapporteur…Christof Heyns cit. (note 3), p. 24, paragraphs 113 and 114, letters c and d. 39 SHARKEY, Noel E.: “The evitability of autonomous…” cit., p. 791. In the same vein, ASARO, Peter: “On banning…” cit., pp. 708-709. 40 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 27 January 1967, Article 4 (BOE (Official State Gazette), 4 February 1969). Vid. ad ex. GUTIÉRREZ ESPADA, Cesáreo: “La militarización del espacio parece ya inevitable (La nueva National Space Policy 2006 de los Estados Unidos de America)”, Anuario
REVISTA IEEE 2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above