[DRAFT] LAWS Monitoring Act

[Danlina]

LAWS Monitoring Act

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Danlina

The General Assembly,

KNOWING that one of the advancements a nation can make in technology is Artificial Intelligence, and that technologies such as this are used in Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems.

RECOGNIZING the immorality embedded in giving a non-sentient machine full responsibility over life and death situations on the battlefield, as it can not comprehend humane ethics and rules of war and is vulnerable to cyber-warfare.

BELIEVING that there should always be some degree of sapient intervention in offensive weapons systems.

RESOLVING that there should be international monitoring and restrictions set on LAWSs.

The GA thus declares that, except as limited by earlier resolutions that are still in place:

1. Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWSs) are defined as weapons systems that operate independently from their sapient users while being used and are programmed to engage in lethal tactics.
2. The World Assembly bans the manufacturing of and use of offensive LAWSs on the battlefield to all of its members.
3. The World Assembly mandates that to be manufactured, sold, bought and used by its members, a LAWS must have the following qualities:
   
   1. Can explain their reasoning and decisions to sapient operators in transparent and understandable ways.
   2. Have responsible sapient operators who are clearly identifiable.
   3. Have autonomous functions that are predictable to their operators.
   4. Be manufactured for defensive purposes and used solely by defensive units.
   5. Fit into previous laws of humane weaponry.

[Danlina]

I’m just trying out a winning MUN legislation of mine to see if this game is even suitable for practicing diplomacy.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Read the GA rules thread: right now, I see perspective violations and branding. Also, the big difference between the WA and MUN is that the WA has powerful enforcement mechanisms. We can create binding legislation. If you want to do more on the topic, rather than some weak urging, you can.

[Danlina]

Read the GA rules thread: right now, I see perspective violations and branding. Also, the big difference between the WA and MUN is that the WA has powerful enforcement mechanisms. We can create binding legislation. If you want to do more on the topic, rather than some weak urging, you can.

So you are saying that instead of saying that I am urging I can say I will obligate my legislations?

[Kenmoria]

Read the GA rules thread: right now, I see perspective violations and branding. Also, the big difference between the WA and MUN is that the WA has powerful enforcement mechanisms. We can create binding legislation. If you want to do more on the topic, rather than some weak urging, you can.

So you are saying that instead of saying that I am urging I can say I will obligate my legislations?

(OOC: Yes, that would make the proposal more binding. It is perfectly legal to have an ‘urging’ clause, though some people dislike them. On the other hand, this is illegal for breaking the branding rule and for not being from the right perspective. You can not mention your nation name, or indeed anyone else’s name, in the proposal. Likewise, the GA itself writes laws, so your legislation should begin ‘The General Assembly’ rather than ‘Dear members of the General Assembly’, or something similar.)

[Danlina]

So you are saying that instead of saying that I am urging I can say I will obligate my legislations?

(OOC: Yes, that would make the proposal more binding. It is perfectly legal to have an ‘urging’ clause, though some people dislike them. On the other hand, this is illegal for breaking the branding rule and for not being from the right perspective. You can not mention your nation name, or indeed anyone else’s name, in the proposal. Likewise, the GA itself writes laws, so your legislation should begin ‘The General Assembly’ rather than ‘Dear members of the General Assembly’, or something similar.)

Okay, so I have edited the legislation accordingly. Is there anything I've missed?

[Falcania]

(OOC: Yes, that would make the proposal more binding. It is perfectly legal to have an ‘urging’ clause, though some people dislike them. On the other hand, this is illegal for breaking the branding rule and for not being from the right perspective. You can not mention your nation name, or indeed anyone else’s name, in the proposal. Likewise, the GA itself writes laws, so your legislation should begin ‘The General Assembly’ rather than ‘Dear members of the General Assembly’, or something similar.)

Okay, so I have edited the legislation accordingly. Is there anything I've missed?

There are no humans serving in the national armed forces of the Free Kingdom. You might want to replace reference that specific species to "sapients".

[Danlina]

Okay, so I have edited the legislation accordingly. Is there anything I've missed?

There are no humans serving in the national armed forces of the Free Kingdom. You might want to replace reference that specific species to "sapients".

Done. Anything else?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. We don't support restricting weapon systems merely because they are automated. There is nothing more morally objectionable about a machine killing a person based on an offensive targeting algorithm than of a living person doing the same."

[Danlina]

"Opposed. We don't support restricting weapon systems merely because they are automated. There is nothing more morally objectionable about a machine killing a person based on an offensive targeting algorithm than of a living person doing the same."

Alright. There are two reasons why it does matter:

1. A machine cannot recognize when a soldier surrenders- the law of armed conflict dictates that one cannot kill a soldier who is hors de combat - meaning that he has surrendered, and in the current day, there isn't any kind of technology that is aimed at recognizing a soldier who has surrendered.
2. Replacing human soldiers with robots will just give more nations a reason to go to war- this works on two measures. First of all, with less human casualties expected on the battlefield nations that didn't want to take part in wars because of the number of casualties will start waging wars. Secondly, the introduction of new military tech will just create an arms race that will spark more wars.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. We don't support restricting weapon systems merely because they are automated. There is nothing more morally objectionable about a machine killing a person based on an offensive targeting algorithm than of a living person doing the same."

Alright. There are two reasons why it does matter:

1. A machine cannot recognize when a soldier surrenders- the law of armed conflict dictates that one cannot kill a soldier who is hors de combat - meaning that he has surrendered, and in the current day, there isn't any kind of technology that is aimed at recognizing a soldier who has surrendered.

"Neither does indirect fire. Are you planning on banning non-line of sight weapon systems, too?"

Replacing human soldiers with robots will just give more nations a reason to go to war- this works on two measures. First of all, with less human casualties expected on the battlefield nations that didn't want to take part in wars because of the number of casualties will start waging wars. Secondly, the introduction of new military tech will just create an arms race that will spark more wars.

"No, it won't. The cost of war remains expensive. Indeed, depending on the value of the weapon systems, expensive robotic weapons might be more expensive than living soldiers. Arms races tend to create cold wars, not hot wars. Cold wars are infinitely more preferable than hot wars, as they don't involve shooting. Your arguments are...not thorough. We remain opposed, and will work to prevent this passing."

[Falcania]

"No, it won't. The cost of war remains expensive. Indeed, depending on the value of the weapon systems, expensive robotic weapons might be more expensive than living soldiers. Arms races tend to create cold wars, not hot wars. Cold wars are infinitely more preferable than hot wars, as they don't involve shooting. Your arguments are...not thorough. We remain opposed, and will work to prevent this passing."

Who was it who said, "A person is the cheapest, most powerful computer we can make, and the only one you can make with unskilled labour?"

[Wallenburg]

[edited]

(Image)

LAWS Monitoring Act

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Danlina

General Assembly,

The most recent advancement in technology, and more specifically military technology, is Artificial Intelligence, more widely known as AI, and recently technologies such as this are used in LAWS’s (Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems).

This is straying into the realm of RL, which is inappropriate for member states that have had "AI" for an extended period of time and for those that aren't even close to developing AI. I wouldn't even call this accurate to most RL countries, as "the most recent advancement in technology" is constantly changing, and will hardly ever rest on "AI" for any sizeable length of time.

In short, this statement is inaccurate for both RL nations and member nations whose tech level does not reflect 21st century RL Earth.

Now, what exactly are LAWS’s? LAWS’s are weapons systems that have no kind of sapient intervention while being used and that are specifically aimed at sapient targets and are programmed to engage in lethal tactics.

This would best be implemented as a definition, such as an active clause reading:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, lethal autonomous weapons systems (henceforward LAWS) as ...

After making sure all sides understand the topic on the table, We would like to encourage the general assembly to:

Resolutions must be written from the perspective of the WA, not any member state.

[Danlina]

[edited]

(Image)

LAWS Monitoring Act

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Danlina

General Assembly,

The most recent advancement in technology, and more specifically military technology, is Artificial Intelligence, more widely known as AI, and recently technologies such as this are used in LAWS’s (Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems).

This is straying into the realm of RL, which is inappropriate for member states that have had "AI" for an extended period of time and for those that aren't even close to developing AI. I wouldn't even call this accurate to most RL countries, as "the most recent advancement in technology" is constantly changing, and will hardly ever rest on "AI" for any sizeable length of time.

In short, this statement is inaccurate for both RL nations and member nations whose tech level does not reflect 21st century RL Earth.

Now, what exactly are LAWS’s? LAWS’s are weapons systems that have no kind of sapient intervention while being used and that are specifically aimed at sapient targets and are programmed to engage in lethal tactics.

This would best be implemented as a definition, such as an active clause reading:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, lethal autonomous weapons systems (henceforward LAWS) as ...

After making sure all sides understand the topic on the table, We would like to encourage the general assembly to:

Resolutions must be written from the perspective of the WA, not any member state.

Okay. I will work on these changes. I will inform in the comments when I'm finished editing.

[Danlina]

done the editing. any other problematic stuff on the proposal? (be happy to post more contradicting statements, truly helps)

[Danlina]

Alright. There are two reasons why it does matter:

1. A machine cannot recognize when a soldier surrenders- the law of armed conflict dictates that one cannot kill a soldier who is hors de combat - meaning that he has surrendered, and in the current day, there isn't any kind of technology that is aimed at recognizing a soldier who has surrendered.

"Neither does indirect fire. Are you planning on banning non-line of sight weapon systems, too?"

Replacing human soldiers with robots will just give more nations a reason to go to war- this works on two measures. First of all, with less human casualties expected on the battlefield nations that didn't want to take part in wars because of the number of casualties will start waging wars. Secondly, the introduction of new military tech will just create an arms race that will spark more wars.

"No, it won't. The cost of war remains expensive. Indeed, depending on the value of the weapon systems, expensive robotic weapons might be more expensive than living soldiers. Arms races tend to create cold wars, not hot wars. Cold wars are infinitely more preferable than hot wars, as they don't involve shooting. Your arguments are...not thorough. We remain opposed, and will work to prevent this passing."

Fair point on the first one.

About the response to the second point:
On the topic of cost, I really hope we both agree that most nations take into consideration the number of expected casualties before willingly going to war.
And on the topic of arms races, cold wars often lead to off-homeland wars. I know it's a RL example, but take for example THE Cold War: the conflict slid into many military conflicts in Asia with the USA and USSR taking all the actions from behind the scenes, and let's not even START on the topic of how a nuclear war has almost risen as a direct result of the Cold War.

[Falcania]

I'm afraid I might be aggravating in the sense that I have yet to be convinced of the immorality of controlled lethal autonomous weapons systems. Uncontrolled lethal autonomous weapons of course, have existed for a long time, and are usually referred to as "landmines"

[Danlina]

I'm afraid I might be aggravating in the sense that I have yet to be convinced of the immorality of controlled lethal autonomous weapons systems. Uncontrolled lethal autonomous weapons of course, have existed for a long time, and are usually referred to as "landmines"

Wow, I actually never looked at it this way...
I will need to do some research. Who knows, maybe we will end up outlawing landmines...

[Falcania]

I'm afraid I might be aggravating in the sense that I have yet to be convinced of the immorality of controlled lethal autonomous weapons systems. Uncontrolled lethal autonomous weapons of course, have existed for a long time, and are usually referred to as "landmines"

Wow, I actually never looked at it this way...
I will need to do some research. Who knows, maybe we will end up outlawing landmines...

See GAR 356

[Danlina]

Okay, so I’ve done some quick research, and I came to the conclusion that landmines should be banned as well for their devestating affects on civilian lives even after a war has ended and the fact that they fit into the description of what an LAWS is according to my proposed act.
Should I add a paragraph about it to the proposal or is it self explanatory?

[Danlina]

Wow, I actually never looked at it this way...
I will need to do some research. Who knows, maybe we will end up outlawing landmines...

See GAR 356

From what I understood, this resolution dictates that mines should be monitored to avoid these problems. Does completely banning them oppose this legislation? I think it just replaces it.

[Falcania]

Okay, so I’ve done some quick research, and I came to the conclusion that landmines should be banned as well for their devestating affects on civilian lives even after a war has ended and the fact that they fit into the description of what an LAWS is according to my proposed act.
Should I add a paragraph about it to the proposal or is it self explanatory?

If you did, you'd either duplicate or contradict 356.

In a sense, a nation that produces land mines that are either discriminatory in targeting or automatically time-detonated or deactivated would be manufacturing lethal autonomous weapon systems compliant with GAR 356.

[Danlina]

Okay, so I’ve done some quick research, and I came to the conclusion that landmines should be banned as well for their devestating affects on civilian lives even after a war has ended and the fact that they fit into the description of what an LAWS is according to my proposed act.
Should I add a paragraph about it to the proposal or is it self explanatory?

If you did, you'd either duplicate or contradict 356.

In a sense, a nation that produces land mines that are either discriminatory in targeting or automatically time-detonated or deactivated would be manufacturing lethal autonomous weapon systems compliant with GAR 356.

So because landmines produced according to GAR 356 also fall under the category of LAWS I can’t outlaw LAWS’s without contradicting GAR 356?

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve put some feedback in red. Although some of it is just formatting or grammar, this proposal does have a few flaws that need to be addressed.”

[edited]

(Image)

LAWS Monitoring Act

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Danlina

General Assembly, People normally put ‘The General Assembly’ rather than just ‘General Assembly’.

One of the advancements a nation can make in technology is Artificial Intelligence, more widely known as AI, and technologies such as this are used in LAWS’s There shouldn’t be an apostrophe there. (Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems). The WA defines LAWS's There shouldn’t be an apostrophe there either. as weapons systems that have no kind of sapient intervention while being used and that are specifically aimed at sapient targets and are programmed to engage in lethal tactics. This whole clause reads extremely awkwardly, particularly the first bit.

On this matter, the WA: Everything from ‘RECOGNISES’ to ‘RESOLVES’ is more preambulatory than active in nature, by which I mean the WA is thinking something rather than doing something. Therefore I suggest moving those clauses above this line.

RECOGNIZES the immorality embedded in using LAWS’s in offensive use, It should be for offensive use, not in offensive use.

BELIEVES that there should always be some degree of sapient intervention in lethal offensive weapons systems, What about ones that will result in life-changing injuries or extreme pain? Also, what constitutes intervention? While this is a preambulatory clause, it seems as though it should be made into something with definitive action.

RESOLVES that there should be international monitoring and restrictions set on LAWS’s. However you don’t set any kind of monitoring or restriction in the rest of this piece of legislation.

The World Assembly will minimize the worldwide use of LAWS on the battlefield by:
Boycotting the manufacturing of and use of offensive LAWS’s on the battlefield. This would suggest that the WA itself will boycott LAWS by not using them, but the WA has no military and doesn’t use weapons anyway. I suggest you switch this around so the WA is mandating or encouraging for the member nations to boycott LAWS.

1. The WA clarifies that the act applies only to offensive use of LAWS’s (i.e clause 2 first extention), and defensive use of them shall remain as it is.
   
   1. Clause 1 only applies to defensive weapons which don't violate any already existing laws of humane weaponry.
2. Determining the difference between offensive LAWS’s and defensive LAWS’s: Because of how this is situated, it reads as though this is a way the WA will minimise the use of LAWS. I suggest some reformatting, not just of this clause, but most of the proposal to give it a clear train of thought.
   
   1. Offensive LAWS’s are categorized as LAWS’s that are clearly manufactured and used in offensive positions. This is a self-referential, and ultimately quite vague clause.
   2. Defensive LAWS’s are categorized as LAWS’s that are manufactured and used in defensive positions (usually referring to static or anti-aircraft LAWS’s, though some LAWS’s that are manufactured to be offensive can be deemed defensive through their use). This is even more vague.

[Danlina]

“I’ve put some feedback in red. Although some of it is just formatting or grammar, this proposal does have a few flaws that need to be addressed.”

[edited]

(Image)

LAWS Monitoring Act

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Danlina

General Assembly, People normally put ‘The General Assembly’ rather than just ‘General Assembly’.

One of the advancements a nation can make in technology is Artificial Intelligence, more widely known as AI, and technologies such as this are used in LAWS’s There shouldn’t be an apostrophe there. (Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems). The WA defines LAWS's There shouldn’t be an apostrophe there either. as weapons systems that have no kind of sapient intervention while being used and that are specifically aimed at sapient targets and are programmed to engage in lethal tactics. This whole clause reads extremely awkwardly, particularly the first bit.

On this matter, the WA: Everything from ‘RECOGNISES’ to ‘RESOLVES’ is more preambulatory than active in nature, by which I mean the WA is thinking something rather than doing something. Therefore I suggest moving those clauses above this line.

RECOGNIZES the immorality embedded in using LAWS’s in offensive use, It should be for offensive use, not in offensive use.

BELIEVES that there should always be some degree of sapient intervention in lethal offensive weapons systems, What about ones that will result in life-changing injuries or extreme pain? Also, what constitutes intervention? While this is a preambulatory clause, it seems as though it should be made into something with definitive action.

RESOLVES that there should be international monitoring and restrictions set on LAWS’s. However you don’t set any kind of monitoring or restriction in the rest of this piece of legislation.

The World Assembly will minimize the worldwide use of LAWS on the battlefield by:
Boycotting the manufacturing of and use of offensive LAWS’s on the battlefield. This would suggest that the WA itself will boycott LAWS by not using them, but the WA has no military and doesn’t use weapons anyway. I suggest you switch this around so the WA is mandating or encouraging for the member nations to boycott LAWS.

1. The WA clarifies that the act applies only to offensive use of LAWS’s (i.e clause 2 first extention), and defensive use of them shall remain as it is.
   
   1. Clause 1 only applies to defensive weapons which don't violate any already existing laws of humane weaponry.
2. Determining the difference between offensive LAWS’s and defensive LAWS’s: Because of how this is situated, it reads as though this is a way the WA will minimise the use of LAWS. I suggest some reformatting, not just of this clause, but most of the proposal to give it a clear train of thought.
   
   1. Offensive LAWS’s are categorized as LAWS’s that are clearly manufactured and used in offensive positions. This is a self-referential, and ultimately quite vague clause.
   2. Defensive LAWS’s are categorized as LAWS’s that are manufactured and used in defensive positions (usually referring to static or anti-aircraft LAWS’s, though some LAWS’s that are manufactured to be offensive can be deemed defensive through their use). This is even more vague.

Thanks so much. Now that you highlighted it like this, I see there’s so much stuff in here that will probably be grounds for a repeal.
I’ll be working on it.