![Altos adventure cheats](https://cdn3.cdnme.se/5447227/9-3/21_64e61dfdddf2b33c615a3cd4.png)
![adapting the law of armed conflict to autonomous weapon systems adapting the law of armed conflict to autonomous weapon systems](https://image1.slideserve.com/2319528/the-law-of-armed-conflict-n.jpg)
Contrary to a widespread view, this paper argues that deontological and consequentialist reasons can be coherently combined so as to provide mutually reinforcing ethical and legal reasons for banning AWS. Consequentialist arguments substantiate the conclusion that prohibiting AWS is expected to protect peace and security, thereby enhancing collective human welfare, more effectively than the incompatible choice of permitting their use. Roughly speaking, deontological arguments support the conclusion that by deploying AWS one is likely or even bound to violate moral and legal obligations of special sorts of agents (military commanders and operators) or moral and legal rights of special sorts of patients (AWS potential victims).
![adapting the law of armed conflict to autonomous weapon systems adapting the law of armed conflict to autonomous weapon systems](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/326003974_Discussion_about_preemptive_ban_on_lethal_autonomous_weapon_systems/links/5b376ad1a6fdcc8506e04de0/largepreview.png)
This twofold goal has been pursued by leveraging on ethical and legal arguments, which spell out a variety of deontological or consequentialist reasons. Human rights organizations, as well as a growing number of States, have been arguing for banning weapons systems satisfying this condition – that are usually referred to as autonomous weapons system (AWS) on this account – and for maintaining a meaningful human control (MHC) over any weapons systems. In order to be counted as autonomous, a weapons system must perform the critical functions of target selection and engagement without any intervention by human operators.
![Altos adventure cheats](https://cdn3.cdnme.se/5447227/9-3/21_64e61dfdddf2b33c615a3cd4.png)