Code to Consequences: Assessing Responsibility for International Crimes Through Automated Weapon Systems

Automated weapon systems (AWS), which are fervently used in contemporary armed conflicts, have seen contentious opinions with regard to their usage and violation of international law. The aggravated usage of artificial intelligence AWS by the states and their undeviating contravention of the diverse facets of international criminal law and international humanitarian law has posed several challenges. Despite being ‘automated’, a number of parties, such as the corporate companies, states and the foot troops in operation who set the trigger or used it in another way, have an irreversible role in the inquest. At this outset, it may be identified as sui generis consequence, where the relation of the foundational criminal law components, mens rea and actus reus, is arduous to establish. This poses the colossal challenge of ‘responsibility imbalance’. Despite the active role played by the stakeholders, as mentioned above, AWS has been under the veil of ‘beyond human control’ and has ceased to promulgate any accountability. In recent times, with the expansion of interdependencies on such AWS and the complexities that it poses, it is an obscure task to specifically adjudge responsibility on any human(s), state or corporate(s) due to the multifaceted intricacies of the weapons that require trigger, decision, and aiding in distinct stages. While Article 25(4) of the Rome Statute makes it evident that the International Criminal Court shall have jurisdiction only over natural persons, corporate liability with regard to international crimes through AWS may be established by other facets of international law. This article shall attempt to study this ‘responsibility imbalance”’ from the narrow lens of individual criminal liability, corporate liability and superior responsibility.