ISMUN 2.

0
BACKGROUND GUIDE
DISEC

AGENDA- Discussing the implication of autonomous

weapons on global security and whether there should be an
international regulation or a ban
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Letter from the EB

2. Introduction to the committee

3. Introduction to the agenda

4. Historical context

5. Implications on global security

6. International Efforts

7. The case for regulation or a ban

8. Topics for discussion

"The invention of war brought about the invention of weaponry, and so,
as wars become more terrible, weapons become more terrible too."

- Winston Churchill
 LETTER FROM THE EB
Dear Delegates,

We are privileged to welcome you to the Disarmament and International

Security Committee (DISEC) at ISMUN 2024. The agenda before us—
Discussing the Implications of Autonomous Weapons on Global Security
addresses a critical and evolving issue that demands urgent global
attention.

Autonomous weapons, also known as lethal autonomous weapon systems

(LAWS), have the potential to revolutionize modern warfare. While these
technologies could minimize human casualties, their development raises
significant ethical, legal, and security concerns. The absence of human
intervention in the decision-making process challenges the principles of
accountability, creating uncertainties in compliance with international
humanitarian law.

As delegates, you will debate whether an international framework is

necessary to regulate or ban autonomous weapons, considering both their
benefits and risks. Your task is to weigh the balance between national
security, technological innovation, and the ethical responsibility toward
civilian safety.

We encourage thoughtful, solution-oriented dialogue that fosters global

cooperation and reflects the interests of all member states. Your
deliberations have the power to shape the future of warfare and
international security.

Best regards,
Ishaan Machhar Ishani Ghuge Anvi Beelwan
Chairperson Vice Chairperson Moderator
 INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE

The United Nations (UN) Disarmament and International Security

Committee (DISEC) was created as the first of the Main Committees
in the General Assembly when the charter of the United Nations was
signed in 1945. Thus, DISEC is often referred to as the First
Committee. DISEC was formed to discuss peace and security issues
among members of the international community. According to the
UN Charter, the purpose of DISEC in the General Assembly is to
establish ‘general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of
international peace and security, including the principles governing
disarmament and the regulation of armaments and also to give
“recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or
to the Security Council.”

Although DISEC cannot directly advise the Security Council’s

decision-making process, the UN Charter explains that DISEC can
suggest specific topics for Security Council consideration.
 INTRODUCTION TO THE AGENDA

Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), also referred to as

autonomous weapons systems, have captured much attention due to
their characteristics that may impact on the security of countries. An
autonomous weapon is a target selecting, and engaging weapon,
which applies artificial intelligence or machine learning without
involving human actors on the battlefield.
Technology, especially in military matters, has always raised ethical
dilemmas, but the ability of these weapons to function autonomously
in the battlefield poses new moral, legal, and strategic issues.

Autonomous weapons in the security domain assure improved

structural accuracy, timely responsiveness and lesser direct
participation of armed forces. Supporters of these argue that such
weapons would reduce casualties sustained by men of war, increase
the efficacy of war efforts, and render hostile forces incapable of
aggressive moves. However, usually such advantages come with
such disadvantages as, lack of control over the extent of international
conflict resolution, wrong targeting of perceived enemies, and
general incompatibility with military law. Since AI orientation is
notoriously erratic, fear relates to automatic systems having the
potential to make mistakes when interpreting active battlefields.
Small errors would have dire effects such as targeting systems would
collapse due to high targeting system failures and many civilian lives
lost.
Key characteristics of AWS:
● Autonomy in Target Selection and Engagement: can identify and
engage targets based on pre-programmed criteria
● AI Integration: most AWS incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) to
enhance their decision-making capabilities.

Classifications of AWS:

The most common types of weapons with autonomous functions are

defensive systems. This includes systems such as antivehicle and
antipersonnel mines, which, once activated, operate autonomously
based on trigger mechanisms.

Newer systems employing increasingly sophisticated technology

include missile defense systems and sentry systems, which can
autonomously detect and engage targets and issue warnings. Other
examples include loitering munition (also known as suicide,
kamikaze or exploding drone) which contain a built-in warhead
(munition) and wait (loiter) around a predefined area until a target is
located by an operator on the ground or by automated sensors
onboard, and then attacks the target.

Example : Missile Defense Systems: Systems like the Phalanx CIWS,

which can autonomously detect, track, and destroy incoming missiles
or aircraft.
 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The use of technology in warfare has evolved rapidly, from the

development of nuclear weapons to biological and cyber warfare.
The advent of autonomous weapons systems marks another chapter
in the history of warfare- whether its a dark one or not is left up to
the delegates to debate.

The history of AWS- to the surprise of many- is a vast one. The AWS
predate the computer era and are in use in offensive and defensive
warfare throughout the world today.

● The emergence of the Cold War and the introduction of

Automation in society.

Cold war technology developed tremendously due to the arms race

between the US and the USSR. During this period there was
improvement in radar and early computers, guiding missile systems
that are similar to today’s automated systems. The concept of using
drones in warfare was gradually developed when both superpowers
looked for a way to boost the effectiveness of a military surge in a
war without the need to involve manpower on the front and minimize
the casualties of their soldiers.

At the early onset of the sixties the idea of automated defense

systems started to come into being. Programs such as the Safeguard
Program by the United States indicated the efficiency of defense
systems that could identify the threats and respond to them with
much higher velocity than a human. These systems while under
human control were the first steps toward Automation or partly
Automation in Military technology.
 ● The Digital revolution and AI

The modern day revolution or digital revolution that started at the

end of the twentieth century provided computing power and the
creation of artificial intelligence (AI). The defense planners and
mechanical specialists started dreaming about intelligent
applications of artificial intelligence to manage the expanded tactical
environments of contemporary warfare.

By the end of the nineties, UAVs, or drones, became an essential tool

of warfare. Whereas in the beginning the operation of these systems was
done under the supervision of the human operators, they led the way
towards higher degrees of automation. The experiences from the
successful usage of drones in different military operations revealed that it
may be useful to eliminate people from the dangerous range of a theater of
war.

● The Birth of Autonomous Weapons Systems

During the beginning of the twenty-first century, the first prototypes

of what was to become AWS were being developed. These systems
were designed to find and recognize targets to strike with the barest
of outside human direction hence posing deep moral and legal issues
regarding future warfare.

The use of such automated systems in war zones, for instance, the
Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) used by the U. S. navy
brought out the possibility—and the danger—ofAWS. These
systems could target and eliminate emerging threats with a high
degree of speed and efficiency but at the same time they revealed
how far removed the actual decisions about the application of force
were from the human decision-makers.
 IMPLICATIONS ON GLOBAL SECURITY

The world stands to face potential labyrinthine conflicts in the name

of AWS. The autonomous weapons systems have profound
implications in multiple spheres- ranging from tactical warfare to
ethical dilemmas.

The assumption that LAWS would be at least as good or better than

humans at life and death decisions relies on a disconnect between how
these algorithms function and how they are utilized. Human judgment
is never eliminated from the equation, but it transfers judgment from
military practitioners to computer programmers

1. Intensification of Conflicts

● Lowering the Threshold for War:

○ The AWS essentially reduces the human cost of war for those
in its possession. This could enable states to potentially see the
system as a risk mitigating factor and encourage them to, in
layman’s terms- wage more wars.

2. Arms Race

● Global Arms Race:

○ The development and deployment of AWS could trigger a new
global arms race- similar to the nuclear one, only this time- the
outcome might be worse with nations vying to develop
increasingly advanced autonomous systems.
● Proliferation to Non-State Actors:
○ There's a risk that AWS could be acquired by non-state actors,
including terrorist groups or rogue states. Especially with
tensions constantly rising within several nations,there is no
 predicting to what inhumane extent this technology may be
used if it goes into the wrong hands.

3. Ethical and Legal Challenges

● Accountability in Warfare:
○ The use of AWS raises significant questions about
accountability and compliance with international humanitarian
law (IHL). If an AWS commits a war crime, it is unclear who
would be held responsible—the programmer, the commander,
or the state that deployed it?
● Erosion of International Norms:
○ If AWS are used in ways that violate IHL, and these violations
go unpunished, it could set a dangerous precedent, leading to
further erosion of global norms and an increase in war crimes.

5. Humanitarian Impact

● Civilian Casualties:
○ AWS could result to enhanced civilian deaths since these
drones might not have an ability to differentiate between the
two factions.
 INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS

1. United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)

● Group of Governmental Experts (GGE):

○ The most prominent forum for discussing AWS. It has been
meeting regularly since 2014 to discuss the challenges posed by
AWS and to explore potential options for regulation.
○ Key Discussions: various aspects of AWS, including definitions,
the role of human control, ethical concerns, and the applicability
of international humanitarian law.

2. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots

● Civil Society Advocacy:

○ The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is a global coalition of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) advocating for a preemptive
ban on fully autonomous weapons.
○ Launched: 2013
○ Objectives: To ban development, production, and use of AWS
through an international treaty, like the bans on landmines and
cluster munitions.

3. The European Union's Position

● Support for Regulation:

○ The European Union (EU) has taken a strong stance in favor of
regulating AWS. The European Parliament has called for a ban on
the development and use of fully autonomous weapons that can
operate without meaningful human control.
○ The EU supports the CCW, advocating for principles that ensure
compliance with international humanitarian law and the protection
of human rights.
 THE CASE FOR REGULATION OR A BAN

Arguments for Regulation:

● Diminishing Risks: Regulation could ensure that the development

and deployment of autonomous weapons are carried out responsibly,
so that the technology can be used for the moral good.
● Maintaining Human Control: Regulations could enforce key
principles of maintaining human control over machines and ensure
the critical life-threatening decisions in warfare continue to be made
by humans.

Arguments for a Ban:

● Ethical Case: A ban would prevent, to an extent, any unethical

occurrences on the battlefield due to machine error.
● Preventing an Arms Race: A ban could prevent the onset of a new
arms race, reducing the risk of global instability.
● Protecting Civilians: A ban would address concerns about the
potential for autonomous weapons to violate IHL and endanger
civilian lives.
 TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION

● Should the international community go for the complete elimination

of autonomous weapons, or would there be the need for the
regulation of such systems?
● In what ways can the current set of international laws be further
developed so as to be effectively capable of confronting the issues
arising from the utilization of autonomous weapons?
● What is the ethical perspective’s position or status in creating and
implementing autonomous weapons?
● In what ways can the use of autonomous weapons be successfully
justified as being in the best interest of the states and at the same
time, address the negative impacts they may have on international
security?
● There are various measures that need to be implemented in order to
ensure accountability of the use of autonomous weapons.

POSSIBLE MODERATED CAUCUS TOPICS

1. What are the effects of autonomous weapons on global stability,
especially in nuclear-arm countries?
2. What are various measures that can be taken by the international
communities in humanitarian laws related to autonomous weapons?
3. What are the ethical implications of allowing machines to make
life-and-death decisions on the battlefield?
4. Who should be held accountable for unlawful actions committed by
autonomous weapons: the operator, the manufacturer, or the state?
5. Discussing the potential humanitarian consequences of deploying
autonomous weapons in conflict zones, particularly in urban
warfare.
6. How can autonomous weapons be regulated to ensure that they do
follow the international norms and regulations related to citizen
protection?
7. Discussing how transparency and trust- building measures are
necessary in regulation of autonomous weapons.
8. What steps can be taken to reduce the risk of hacking or misuse of
autonomous weapons systems by adversaries?

QARMA
1. What specific changes or additions to international humanitarian
law are necessary to effectively regulate autonomous weapons?
2. Should international regulations make human oversight mandatory
in the use of legal force by autonomous systems?
3. What legal frameworks need to be established to ensure clear
accountability for the use of autonomous weapons?
4. What safeguards can be implemented to mitigate the humanitarian
impact of autonomous weapons in conflict zones such as urban
areas?
5. Should the international community pursue a complete ban on fully
autonomous weapons or a regulatory framework that would be
more efficient?

READ FURTHER

1. Jeffrey S. Thurnher, “Legal Implications of Fully Autonomous

Targeting,” Joint Force Quarterly 67 (4th Quarter, October 2012):
83, accessed 8 March 2017,
 http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-67/JFQ-
67_77-84_Thurnher.pdf.
2. Kenneth Anderson and Matthew C. Waxman, “Law and Ethics for
Autonomous Weapon Systems: Why a Ban Won’t Work and How
the Laws of War Can,” Stanford University, Hoover Institution
Press, Jean Perkins Task Force on National Security and Law Essay
Series
3. Michael N. Schmitt, “Autonomous Weapon Systems and
International Humanitarian Law: a Reply to the Critics,” Harvard
National Security Journal, 5 February 2013, accessed 28 March
2017, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/02/autonomous-weapon-
systems-and-international-humanitarian-law-a-reply-to-the-
critics/.
4. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-
Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2017/Pros-and-Cons-
of-Autonomous-Weapons-Systems/

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-
conventional-weapons/background-on-laws-in-the-
ccw/#:~:text=This%20includes%20systems%20such%20as,autono
mously%20based%20on%20trigger%20mechanisms.

2. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/when-ai-crosses-the-line-
the-impending-threat-of-autonomous-weapons-systems