Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS): meaningful human Control, collective moral responsibility and institutional design

Abstract This article is concerned with three key ethical issues that arise from the use in military combat of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). The first issue concerns the unpredictability of LAWS in respect of the requirement of Meaningful Human Control (MHC) – as opposed to machine control - in theatres of war. It is argued that the unpredictability of (especially) ‘self-learning’ LAWS is not necessarily a barrier to their morally acceptable use under some restricted conditions. The second issue concerns a normative framework for ascribing moral and, potentially, legal responsibility in respect of LAWS, i.e., the so-called responsibility gap. It is argued that the notion of collective responsibility is potentially helpful here. The third issue concerns human on-the-loop LAWS. It is argued that whereas human out-of-the loop weapons should be prohibited, nevertheless, under certain restrictive conditions some human on-the-loop LAWSs (as well as human in-the-loop LAWSs) may be morally acceptable.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ethics and Information Technology
Published
2025-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-025-09874-x
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS): meaningful human Control, collective moral responsibility and institutional design

Seumas Miller
Ethics and Information Technology
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS): meaningful human Control, collective moral responsibility and institutional design

Seumas Miller
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article is concerned with three key ethical issues that arise from the use in military combat of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). The first issue concerns the unpredictability of LAWS in respect of the requirement of Meaningful Human Control (MHC) – as opposed to machine control - in theatres of war. It is argued that the unpredictability of (especially) ‘self-learning’ LAWS is not necessarily a barrier to their morally acceptable use under some restricted conditions. The second issue concerns a normative framework for ascribing moral and, potentially, legal responsibility in respect of LAWS, i.e., the so-called responsibility gap. It is argued that the notion of collective responsibility is potentially helpful here. The third issue concerns human on-the-loop LAWS. It is argued that whereas human out-of-the loop weapons should be prohibited, nevertheless, under certain restrictive conditions some human on-the-loop LAWSs (as well as human in-the-loop LAWSs) may be morally acceptable.

Ethics and Information TechnologyVol. 27(4)
Charles Sturt University (AU), University of Oxford (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.