Criminal Liability: Problem Setting

Responsibility for harm that might arise from the use of autonomous weapons (AWS) on the battlefield has been one of the most prominent topics of academic and policy debate. The perceived inability to assign criminal liability for crimes involving AWS raises concerns of accountability the and possibility encouraging misuse or reckless use. This chapter lies the groundwork for Part V, which is centred around criminal liability for AWS-related harm. It presents a short history of the ‘responsibility gap’ debate surrounding AWS before focusing on the criminal liability gap. An overview is presented of the different Candidates for liability as proposed in literature, which includes the commander activating the AWS but also persons prior in the weapon’s lifecycle (producer, programmer, reviewer, etc.). It then provides a roadmap of this chapter and Chap. 12, highlighting the issues that will be discussed in more detail. Finally, some general notes are given concerning jurisdictional differences in criminal law concepts, such as those related to the different fault degrees. A methodological choice is made to not restrict the analysis to one particular jurisdiction, in order to allow a broader application of this book’s findings. This however necessitates a shared internal vocabulary, which is offered in this chapter.