The Dimensions of ‘Weapons Autonomy’. In line with the above, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx consider that there are three distinct ‘dimensions of autonomy’,38 which this thesis will use to frame a working definition of LAWS. First, there is the level of human control, which concerns the relationship between the machine and its human operator, as well as task allocation between the two. This also finds reflection in the seminal Human Rights Watch report, Losing Humanity,39 which distinguished between three categories.40 • ‘Human-in-the-Loop Weapons’, where the human both selects and engages the target, albeit via the medium of the machine. • ‘Human-on-the-Loop Weapons’, where the machine selects and engages the target, but under human oversight and with the option of manual override. • ‘Human-out-of-the-Loop Weapons’, where the machine selects and engages the target without any further human interaction.41 The concept of autonomy gravitates towards humans being out-of-the-loop, although, as will be seen below, lower forms of autonomy may well be associated with the other categories.42 Furthermore, while the ‘level of human control’ accords with some of the broader definitions of technical autonomy alluded to above, weapons autonomy is a much narrower and more specific term. Namely, to fully capture the essence of 35 Xxxxx Xxxxxxx et al., ‘A Prospectus on Agent Autonomy’ in Xxxxx Xxxxxxx et al. (eds.), Agent Autonomy (Springer, 2003), 3-4. 36 See, for example, Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx and Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx, ‘Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey’ (2007) 1 Foundations and Trends in Human-Robot Interaction 203. 37 See, for example, Defense Science Board, US Department of Defense (DoD), The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for ATL, July 2012), 1. 38 Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (n 30), 6-7. 39 Human Rights Watch, Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots (Human Rights Watch, 2012). 41 Ibid. Note that human-out-of-the-loop systems still require initial activation by a human.
