What's a War Crime Without a War Criminal?: Legal Avenues of Accountability for the Wrongful Wartime Acts of Killer Robots

"Killer robots" are here, and states may soon pursue their deployment on the battlefield. Before this imminent crossing of what scholars have coined the "Robo-Rubicon," it is pivotal to assess the process of accountability that will be enacted for lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that violate the laws of war. This thesis investigates plausible defendants, based on the prosecutorial standards in international criminal law (ICL), for a LAWS that acts wrongfully in battle. This analysis will proceed in two parts. First, we follow the chain of culpability laid out by seminal ICL command responsibility cases to assess whether a parallel liable agent can be identified in wartime violations involving LAWS. We find that existing ICL is generally not equipped to attribute blame to any one human or non-human agent. Second, we venture beyond ICL into a legal sphere more prepared to assess autonomous system liability: U.S. tort law. This thesis finds that U.S. tort law should inspire amendments to ICL to provide for corporate defendants and strict liability offenses. Ultimately, however, this thesis cautions against the implementation of an overly stringent accountability standard in ICL, as it may prematurely deter the development and deployment of LAWS.