Should military robots that are designed to evacuate injured soldiers from the battlefield carry small arms for self-defence the same way human military personnel does?

Abstract

While medical personnel are protected from attack under the laws of war, they are permitted to carry small arms for self-defence and the defence of those in their care in acknowledgement of the reality that they are sometimes unlawfully targeted. Robots whose function is to extract wounded combatants are being developed and like human medical personnel, are at risk of being unlawfully targeted.  This article argues that extraction robots should be armed to protect themselves and those in their care to achieve the goals of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (the Convention) to the fullest extent. First, being armed enables the robot to avoid incapacitation which in turn allows it to continue to assist the wounded, reducing human suffering and enlarging the dignity of the wounded. The ability to defend wounded in its care achieves the same ends. However, programming should set a high threshold of certainty of unlawful attack before force is used in order to recognise the complexity and confusion of combat situations and avoid the possibility of the robot losing protected status. In addition, to comply with proportionality and necessity requirements under the doctrine of self-defence, and to further minimise the chance of illegitimate force (particularly lethal force) being exerted, ERs should be equipped with communicative capabilities and non-lethal response options.