We live in an age that constantly pushes the limits of knowledge and technology. The digital revolution, which began with the introduction of computers and the internet into our lives, has reached a new phase with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. AI is causing profound changes in every aspect of life, from health to education, from the economy to security. However, one of the biggest question marks brought about by this technological progress is related to its use in the military field. AI-supported weapon systems and war strategies fundamentally shake the understanding of international security, while also bringing ethical and legal challenges of this new era.
The military use of AI technology will determine the future of wars and thereby the future of humanity. The best answer to whether it will be the new face of war or the guardian of peace can be given by discussing how international law adapts to this new era and what can be done to protect human values. In a world struggling to keep up with the speed of technology, challenging questions await answers regarding how AI will shape our future.
Definition of War and International Efforts
According to international law, war generally refers to a situation involving armed conflict between two or more states, characterized by continuity and carried out by regular forces against each other. International law, especially through documents such as the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, defines the legal framework of war and the basic principles of the law of war. These regulations govern the rights and obligations of the warring parties, the protection of civilians and prisoners of war, and the conduct of hostilities.
In other words, war is a situation where states, based on sovereign decisions, attempt to resolve international disputes through the use of armed force. This definition can also encompass internal conflicts and other types of armed conflict, but the legal regime applicable in these cases may differ.
Strategies for Peacekeeping
The primary purpose of international humanitarian law is to minimize the damages of war and, in particular, to protect civilians and other victims of war. Therefore, the definition of war and the related legal regulations represent a broad ethical and legal framework that benefits not only the warring states but the entire international community. In light of the definitions and explanations given above; the general point within any concept of war is the involvement of armed forces, whether trained or untrained, among the warring parties, keeping the war among these groups and not reflecting it on civilians, or in other words, always protecting the human dimension of war by not involving civilians. These rules primarily drive us away from departing from human values. This situation, which has been decided by many different agreements, has been developed in the context of lessons learned from wars in human history, unfortunately resulting in the deaths of thousands and sometimes millions of civilians, and has emerged as a key mechanism to fulfill the necessity of being human by protecting fundamental rights derived from being human, and protecting itself and its future.
The most important preventive measures to minimize civilian casualties in wars can be grouped as actions to be taken before the war starts, during the tension period, the war period, and the peace period. Examples include; eliminating or minimizing potential conflict areas that could create tension from the very beginning, and thus preventing the potential tension that could lead to a possible war from starting, concluding the tension phase if there is a possibility of war starting, binding it to an agreement if it starts so that it does not turn into armed conflict, and if it is inevitable to turn into armed conflict or if the situation of armed conflict is already dominant, ending it promptly. Within the scope of international law, these considerations have been linked to a certain flow and solutions, and different organizations have been developed for this purpose to ensure that the steps in question are taken. The efforts that are fundamental to these organizations are based on the desire to resolve international disputes through peaceful means and to prevent potential conflicts.
Among the methods applied, Diplomacy as the most widespread tool is a fundamental tool in managing relations between states and is one of the oldest methods to prevent wars. Diplomatic negotiations aim to resolve disputes and develop common understandings.
For Diplomacy to be operated more comfortably and to continue according to certain rules, international law, which can be described as a set of rules and principles regulating interstate relations, has been developed. Many agreements in this field aim to prevent wars. For example, the United Nations Charter requires member states to resolve international disputes through peaceful means.
In the continuation of this chain, as the reflections, implementers, or controllers of these legal rules on the field, international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), NATO, the European Union (EU), the African Union (AU), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), encourage dialogue and cooperation among member states to prevent wars.
Thanks to the contributions of these organizations and the developed legal rules, agreements such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) signed during the Cold War aim to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which are seen as the biggest threat to human history, and thus to reduce the possibility of wars that could cause mass deaths of people and large damages.
The guarantor of the rules set and the guardian of the continuity of the system established are again the states under these rules. States, for this purpose, can reduce potential threats by giving mutual security guarantees within the framework of these rules. Here, states make commitments to not start a war and to resort to diplomatic means to the maximum extent, to determine a course of action within the framework of the legal rules set. This will reduce tension and prevent the start of a war.
In different situations after tension or war, concluded or cooled off, there is often a need, usually a structure jointly established by the states or communities that are parties to the tension/war or peacekeeping operations conducted by the UN and other international organizations. Thus, steps are taken to ensure stability in conflict or tension areas and to prevent the (re)start of war.
AI and the Future of War: Ethical and Legal Dimensions
The protection mechanism developed based on humanity’s experience is being re-tested with technological developments in a different direction today. We witness the use of AI systems for decision support purposes in the battlefield recently, bringing to light the terrible dimensions that the situation can reach. Especially in scenarios involving AI systems expected to make decisions about the lives and deaths of people, the use of AI in military operations must be discussed in legal, ethical, and human terms. Because especially the integration of AI in military contexts, especially in terms of target identification and decision-making on lethal actions, brings significant ethical, legal, and moral problems.
Who is responsible for the decisions made by AI systems? It can be quite complex and difficult to determine. However, it is clear that the responsibility cannot solely be attributed to the developers, operators, or conceptually to the AI itself. Those who approve the decisions will be the main party responsible. Because even within AI systems, humans, who are the implementers of the decision, are the main building blocks of the events. In this context, there is a “responsibility gap” where it is unclear who should be held responsible for the mistakes or unethical outcomes that occur as a result of actions.
By their nature, AI systems often operate as “black boxes,” where the decision-making process is not fully visible or understandable to humans. This lack of transparency can make it difficult to ensure ethical guidelines are followed and to assess compliance with international laws. At this point, humans again come into play.
In light of the examples given above, according to international humanitarian law and the organizations that implement and control it, combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians and minimize or reduce to zero the damage to civilians for the purpose of gaining a military advantage. Assigning this task of making distinctions to AI introduces uncertainties about the system’s ability to accurately assess such complex and nuanced situations.
Before actions that could direct human history and lead to mass slaughters, the degree of autonomy given to AI in making lethal decisions is an ethical issue at a critical threshold. While some argue that AI could potentially reduce human errors and biases, others are concerned about delegating life-and-death decisions to machines that lack human judgment and moral reasoning.
Conclusion: The New Path to Peace or the New Face of War?
Despite all the protection mechanisms it has developed, humanity is again under threat by artificial intelligence-based systems developed by itself. This threat, which needs to be eliminated in a short time, otherwise could lead to unprecedented deaths and genocides, has a very high priority.
The biggest responsibility for this threat again falls on the organizations established to apply the rules emerged as a accumulation of painful experiences gained throughout human history. These organizations should adapt to evolving technology and social structures over time, undergo change and transformation, and revise the set rules and regulations according to the current situation.
Not only in the military context but also in a broader human context, reducing the decision of life and death to algorithmic processes is a demeaning process for human dignity. The impersonal nature of AI-driven decisions in war could lead to the dehumanization of the enemy and desensitization to violence. Similarly, if military and political leaders who cause the mass deaths of people by using AI systems nowadays do not experience the internal struggle of a drone pilot who drops bombs on the battlefield from miles away while sipping his coffee at the console during the morning shift and questioning his duty ethically, the ugly face of war could become even uglier.
These concerns and current problems only underscore the need for the development of robust international norms and regulations governing the use of AI in military settings, ongoing ethical debates, and legal reviews. Ensuring that AI applications in war adhere to ethical principles, respect human rights, and comply with international humanitarian law is crucial to prevent misuse and unwanted consequences.
As a former staff officer and intelligence officer, based on my academic knowledge along with my field experience, knowledge, and accumulation, I would like to emphasize that those who decide on the mass execution of people in the battlefield, civilians-soldiers-women-children alike, are not the AI systems or their algorithms, but those who implement these algorithms, those who approve the decision, those who defend the outcome as a success and seek military and political advantage from it, and unfortunately those who prefer to watch all this happen from a distance in silence. Just like in the military, in civilian life too, assigning a task or creating a system does not absolve decision-makers of their responsibilities or allow them to escape from them.
Most importantly, and perhaps the only way for humanity to secure its own future, is to create an environment of development, transformation, and exchange of knowledge and culture where all the communities of the world, on a small scale regionally and on a large scale globally, respect each other’s understanding and cultures, do not ignore the fundamental rights derived from being human, always prioritize their mutual interests, and strive to find common ground. Although this intellectual structure change and transformation should begin within the nuclear family much before schools, it must definitely be supported by initiatives such as mutual exchange programs, cultural festivals, and academic collaborations. Thus, by increasing understanding and tolerance among different communities, it will contribute to the long-term preservation of peace.
