IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethics of autonomous weapons systems and its applicability to any AI systems


  • Gómez de Ágreda, Ángel


Most artificial intelligence technologies are dual-use. They are incorporated into both peaceful civilian applications and military weapons systems. Most of the existing codes of conduct and ethical principles on artificial intelligence address the former while largely ignoring the latter. But when these technologies are used to power systems specifically designed to cause harm, the question must be asked as to whether the ethics applied to military autonomous systems should also be taken into account for all artificial intelligence technologies susceptible of being used for those purposes. However, while a freeze in investigations is neither possible nor desirable, neither is the maintenance of the current status quo. Comparison between general-purpose ethical codes and military ones concludes that most ethical principles apply to human use of artificial intelligence systems as long as two characteristics are met: that the way algorithms work is understood and that humans retain enough control. In this way, human agency is fully preserved and moral responsibility is retained independently of the potential dual-use of artificial intelligence technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Gómez de Ágreda, Ángel, 2020. "Ethics of autonomous weapons systems and its applicability to any AI systems," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:44:y:2020:i:6:s0308596120300458
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101953

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Oecd, 2018. "AI: Intelligent machines, smart policies: Conference summary," OECD Digital Economy Papers 270, OECD Publishing.
    2. Straub, Jeremy, 2016. "Consideration of the use of autonomous, non-recallable unmanned vehicles and programs as a deterrent or threat by state actors and others," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 39-47.
    3. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
    2. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    3. Siliang Tong & Nan Jia & Xueming Luo & Zheng Fang, 2021. "The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback: Deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(9), pages 1600-1631, September.
    4. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626,, revised Jan 2024.
    6. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    7. Zhu, Yimin & Zhang, Jiemin & Wu, Jifei & Liu, Yingyue, 2022. "AI is better when I'm sure: The influence of certainty of needs on consumers' acceptance of AI chatbots," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 642-652.
    8. Merle, Aurélie & St-Onge, Anik & Sénécal, Sylvain, 2022. "Does it pay to be honest? The effect of retailer-provided negative feedback on consumers’ product choice and shopping experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 532-543.
    9. Benjamin Semujanga & Xavier Parent-Rocheleau, 2024. "Time-Based Stress and Procedural Justice: Can Transparency Mitigate the Effects of Algorithmic Compensation in Gig Work?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(1), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Benedikt Berger & Martin Adam & Alexander Rühr & Alexander Benlian, 2021. "Watch Me Improve—Algorithm Aversion and Demonstrating the Ability to Learn," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(1), pages 55-68, February.
    11. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Julia Ortner & Sebastian Robert & Louis Velthuis, 2023. "Designing incentives and performance measurement for advisors: How to make decision-makers listen to advice," Working Papers 2304, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    12. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl & Joshua Gawlitza, 2021. "Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 713-735, September.
    13. Christoph Keding, 2021. "Understanding the interplay of artificial intelligence and strategic management: four decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 91-134, February.
    14. Staab, Philipp & Geschke, Sascha-Christopher, 2020. "Ratings als arbeitspolitisches Konfliktfeld: Das Beispiel Zalando," Study / edition der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, volume 127, number 429.
    15. Shiri Melumad & Rhonda Hadi & Christian Hildebrand & Adrian F. Ward, 2020. "Technology-Augmented Choice: How Digital Innovations Are Transforming Consumer Decision Processes," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 90-101, October.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:449-451 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Scott Schanke & Gordon Burtch & Gautam Ray, 2021. "Estimating the Impact of “Humanizing” Customer Service Chatbots," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 736-751, September.
    18. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    19. Sutton, Steve G. & Arnold, Vicky & Holt, Matthew, 2023. "An extension of the theory of technology dominance: Capturing the underlying causal complexity," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    20. Anania, Emily C. & Rice, Stephen & Pierce, Matthew & Winter, Scott R. & Capps, John & Walters, Nathan W. & Milner, Mattie N., 2019. "Public support for police drone missions depends on political affiliation and neighborhood demographics," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 95-103.
    21. Jean-Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2022. "Belief Elicitation When More than Money Matters: Controlling for "Control"," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 837-888, August.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:44:y:2020:i:6:s0308596120300458. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.