Essay
What investors should know about defence tech investing
What investors should know about defence tech investing
The increasing integration of autonomous weapons systems and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into military operations around the globe is creating human rights risks that tech investors should not ignore.
Arvind Ganesan, Director of Economic Justice and Rights Division, Human Rights Watch
As governments compete for technological dominance on the battlefield, the specter of autonomous weapons systems hangs over the world. Autonomous weapons systems reduce life-and-death decisions to lines of code, selecting and engaging targets without human intervention, increasingly with support from AI technologies.
Because of the legal, ethical, and security risks these weapons present to civilian populations, Human Rights Watch and our partners have long advocated a new international treaty to prohibit autonomous weapons systems that operate without meaningful human control and those that target people. Systems that are not banned should be regulated so that they will never apply force without meaningful human control.
Investors can play a critical role in ensuring that there are appropriate limits to these new weapons. A group of investors and companies in 2018 signed a pledge to press for governments to properly limit and regulate the technology and not to participate in nor support the development, manufacture, trade, or use of lethal autonomous weapons.
Beyond automated weapons systems, other uses of AI in military settings, for example, to support targeting or other life-and-death decisions, risk increasing civilian harm and could violate international humanitarian law because of a lack of discrimination and proportionality, which are required under international law. Many militaries are currently integrating decision support systems (DSSs) that use AI to inform these critical decisions.
Machine learning systems often rely on mass surveillance for training data, risk embedding and augmenting structural biases in their models. They also create new ways for governments and companies to avoid accountability for abuses, due to their opaque “black box” design and the fact that military or classified use of technology systems and products is often exempt from regulatory scrutiny on national security grounds.
Given the dual-use nature of many technologies, investors should be clear about any tech product’s potential use in military contexts and any national or international legal requirements around investment in weapons systems or technology for military use. If companies are located in a country that is a party to a relevant disarmament treaty, for example, national implementation legislation or policy may limit investment in weapons systems. Many states parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, for example, consider investment in the production of those weapons banned under the prohibition on assistance with prohibited activities.
As governments compete for technological dominance on the battlefield, the specter of autonomous weapons systems hangs over the world. Autonomous weapons systems reduce life-and-death decisions to lines of code, selecting and engaging targets without human intervention, increasingly with support from AI technologies.
Because of the legal, ethical, and security risks these weapons present to civilian populations, Human Rights Watch and our partners have long advocated a new international treaty to prohibit autonomous weapons systems that operate without meaningful human control and those that target people. Systems that are not banned should be regulated so that they will never apply force without meaningful human control.
Investors can play a critical role in ensuring that there are appropriate limits to these new weapons. A group of investors and companies in 2018 signed a pledge to press for governments to properly limit and regulate the technology and not to participate in nor support the development, manufacture, trade, or use of lethal autonomous weapons.
Beyond automated weapons systems, other uses of AI in military settings, for example, to support targeting or other life-and-death decisions, risk increasing civilian harm and could violate international humanitarian law because of a lack of discrimination and proportionality, which are required under international law. Many militaries are currently integrating decision support systems (DSSs) that use AI to inform these critical decisions.
Machine learning systems often rely on mass surveillance for training data, risk embedding and augmenting structural biases in their models. They also create new ways for governments and companies to avoid accountability for abuses, due to their opaque “black box” design and the fact that military or classified use of technology systems and products is often exempt from regulatory scrutiny on national security grounds.
Arvind Ganesan, Director of Economic Justice and Rights Division, Human Rights Watch
Even beyond legal compliance, investors have a responsibility under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to avoid contributing to human rights abuses through their investments in the tech sector. This means assessing the potential human rights impact of an investment prior to a transaction and on an ongoing basis once they make the investment.
Investors should have clear investment standards and also assess whether businesses they invest in are likely to respect international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war, given the heightened risk of facilitating abuses, in addition to respect for international human rights law.
Investors considering supporting tech companies should ask whether they have any mechanism to monitor or limit the use of their products by military agencies. Investors should also ask what contractual clauses or other measures the company has in place to prohibit use that violates international human rights or humanitarian law, including through customization, targeting, servicing or otherwise. Once a tech product or system has been sold or contracted for classified purposes, companies may have little to no control over how a military agency uses their products or systems.
Investors should consult with a variety of stakeholders about a company or product’s potential human rights impact, including stakeholders advocating humanitarian disarmament and human rights safeguards around the use of AI in military contexts.
As military deployment of autonomous weapons systems and AI technologies grows, along with partnerships between tech companies and governments, investors should think carefully about their investment philosophy, develop red-lines, and question the human rights and humanitarian impact of military technologies. Investors have significant power to shape how these technologies are developed and used, including refraining from investing when the risks are simply too high.
Given the dual-use nature of many technologies, investors should be clear about any tech product’s potential use in military contexts and any national or international legal requirements around investment in weapons systems or technology for military use. If companies are located in a country that is a party to a relevant disarmament treaty, for example, national implementation legislation or policy may limit investment in weapons systems. Many states parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, for example, consider investment in the production of those weapons banned under the prohibition on assistance with prohibited activities.
Even beyond legal compliance, investors have a responsibility under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to avoid contributing to human rights abuses through their investments in the tech sector. This means assessing the potential human rights impact of an investment prior to a transaction and on an ongoing basis once they make the investment.
Investors should have clear investment standards and also assess whether businesses they invest in are likely to respect international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war, given the heightened risk of facilitating abuses, in addition to respect for international human rights law.
Investors considering supporting tech companies should ask whether they have any mechanism to monitor or limit the use of their products by military agencies. Investors should also ask what contractual clauses or other measures the company has in place to prohibit use that violates international human rights or humanitarian law, including through customization, targeting, servicing or otherwise. Once a tech product or system has been sold or contracted for classified purposes, companies may have little to no control over how a military agency uses their products or systems.
Investors should consult with a variety of stakeholders about a company or product’s potential human rights impact, including stakeholders advocating humanitarian disarmament and human rights safeguards around the use of AI in military contexts.
As military deployment of autonomous weapons systems and AI technologies grows, along with partnerships between tech companies and governments, investors should think carefully about their investment philosophy, develop red-lines, and question the human rights and humanitarian impact of military technologies. Investors have significant power to shape how these technologies are developed and used, including refraining from investing when the risks are simply too high.
All Rights Reserved
All Rights Reserved