“Prevention is better than the cure. . .” — Erasmus, 16th Century

In “re-opening” the classic debate surrounding a state’s wider right of self- defense (in light of emerging technologies, and via the “lens” of influence communications), the authors controversially “close” the following discussion in favor of allowing Embodied Artificial Intelligence (EAI) to lawfully authorize pre-emptive acts of self-defense in response to non-imminent threats of a grave
 se of force. The authors provide a twofold justification for adopting this highly provocative stance.

First, they argue that the introduction of EAIs will facilitate a unique recalibration of the necessity and last resort requirements of self-defense which would “enable” certain pre-emptive actions to be re-categorized as “anticipatory.” Secondly, the authors contend that because EAIs will be able to “compute” post-bellum considerations as part of their preparatory calculations, the potential unlawfulness of pre-emptive actions are further mitigated. In short, the utilization of EAI’s will ensure that a greater range of humanitarian protections can be provided to the civilian population when future acts of self-defense are deemed necessary.

Keep Reading