• Corpus ID: 195741895

DEFINING THE EMERGING NOTION OF “ MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL ” IN WEAPON SYSTEMS

@inproceedings{Chengeta2017DEFININGTE,
  title={DEFINING THE EMERGING NOTION OF “ MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL ” IN WEAPON SYSTEMS},
  author={Thompson Chengeta},
  year={2017}
}

• Thompson Chengeta
• Published 2017
• Political Science

The emerging notion of “Meaningful Human Control” (MHC) was suggested by the UK-based NGO Article 36 as a possible solution to the challenges that are posed by Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS). Various states, NGOs, and scholars have welcomed the MHC proposition. Although other terms such as “appropriate levels of human judgment” have been suggested, MHC has gained more traction. The challenge remains, however, that both the terms MHC and “appropriate levels of human judgment” are not defined in international law and as of present, there is no literature that extensively or normatively defines either of the terms. From a normative standpoint, the choice between MHC and “appropriate levels of human judgment” is inconsequential since the definition that one ascribes to either of the terms will still be applicable to the other. To that end, this Article discusses questions that are helpful in defining MHC—and by extension “appropriate levels of human judgement”—and it concludes by proposing a working definition. The control exercised by humans over weapons is changing in both nature and degree. Early weapons were mere tools in the hands of fighters who exercised direct control. With the advancement of technology, however, there has been considerable automation of the control that was previously exercised by humans. Moreover, the invention of drones introduced remote control to weapons systems, making it possible for humans to project force while thousands of miles away from the target. On the horizon are AWS— robotic weapons that, once activated, do not need any further human intervention. In the case of AWS, humans seem to be surrendering or delegating control of weapons to computers. While this may seem convenient, efficient, and safe for those deploying them, AWS raise far-reaching concerns. For that reason, many scholars and organisations are insisting that there is a need to maintain MHC over weapons—preferably, as a legal requirement. In order to define MHC, I propose that the international community must ask the following questions: (1) What is the purpose of MHC? What is it that the international community is trying to resolve?