Autonomous Weapons And Law Of Wars: Positivist Vs. Naturalist Approaches
- IJLLR Journal
- 6 days ago
- 1 min read
Nithya Pavai NK, Alliance School of Law, Alliance University, Bengaluru, India
I. ABSTRACT
The advent of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) represents one of the most significant challenges to the existing framework of international humanitarian law (IHL). By delegating lethal decision-making to algorithms, AWS disrupt the moral and legal assumptions underpinning the laws of war. This paper examines the legality and legitimacy of AWS through two foundational schools of jurisprudence: legal positivism and natural law theory. Positivists emphasize the formal sources of law and state consent, viewing AWS as lawful unless explicitly prohibited. Natural law theorists, conversely, argue that morality and human dignity must guide legality, condemning AWS as contrary to the principles of humanity. Through an interdisciplinary approach combining legal philosophy, international law, and ethics, this research contends that a purely positivist interpretation inadequately addresses the moral and accountability vacuum inherent in autonomous warfare. It concludes that a hybrid jurisprudential model— integrating moral reasoning within positivist legality—is essential to uphold humanitarian principles in the age of artificial intelligence.
Keywords: Autonomous Weapons, Jurisprudence, Positivism, Natural Law, International Humanitarian Law, Accountability, Artificial Intelligence, Laws of War.
