ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: LEGAL PERSONALITY, ACCOUNTABILITY DEBATE

The rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) have fundamentally transformed modern warfare, raising complex legal, ethical, and operational questions within the framework of IHL. AI-powered military technologies, particularly autonomous weapons systems (AWS), have introduced unprecedented challenges regarding legal personality, accountability, compliance with the principles of distinction, proportionality, precaution, and military necessity, as well as the attribution of responsibility for unlawful conduct during armed conflicts. While AI systems are capable of independently selecting and engaging targets with varying degrees of human intervention, existing international legal frameworks were developed on the assumption that human actors remain responsible for decisions involving the use of force. Consequently, significant uncertainty exists as to whether AI systems can possess legal personality or bear responsibility for IHL violations, or whether liability should remain exclusively with states, military commanders, programmers, manufacturers, or operators. This study critically examines the intersection between AI and international humanitarian law by evaluating the legal status of AI systems, the adequacy of existing accountability mechanisms, and the ongoing international debate concerning autonomous weapons. The research adopts a doctrinal legal methodology based on the analysis of primary legal materials, including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Additional Protocols of 1977, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), customary international humanitarian law, judicial decisions, state practice, and relevant United Nations documents. Secondary materials, including scholarly writings, reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and publications of international organizations, are equally examined to assess contemporary legal developments. The study finds that existing rules of International Humanitarian Law remain technologically neutral and therefore apply to AI-enabled weapons. However the absence of specific treaty regulation governing autonomous weapon systems has created significant legal uncertainty regarding accountability where AI systems operate with high levels of autonomy. The research further finds that AI lacks independent legal personality under contemporary international law and cannot incur criminal or civil responsibility for IHL violations. Rather, legal responsibility continues to rest upon human actors and states through established doctrines of state responsibility, command responsibility, individual criminal responsibility, and weapons review obligations under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. The study concludes that although existing IHL principles provide an important legal foundation for regulating AI-assisted warfare, they are insufficient to address the unique challenges of highly autonomous weapon systems. Therefore, it recommends the development of a legally binding international instrument establishing minimum standards for meaningful human control over the use of lethal force.