IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2020 - 39

Theoretical Background
We chose to analyze MHC with regard to LAWS from a
perspective of the Value-Sensitive Design (VSD)
approach. Shedding light on LAWS' inscribed attributes,
we follow the VSD approach by Friedman et al. [69]. VSD
yields theoretical and methodological implications by
assuming more or less abstract values to be reflected in
interfaces or software and thus indicate the need of
interpretative work [70]. Thereby, we understand values
in affirmation of the definition of Friedman et al. [54] as
norms or standards assessed by a collective while
neglecting values as norms by individuals. These values, also supporting a common understanding by VSD
scholars, do not necessarily have to be explicitly moral
values [54]. Following this approach, we consider the
design process to be especially relevant with respect to
the interaction between human operators and LAWS, an
assumption that is already prevalent in debates about
the regulation of autonomous weaponry [20], [46], [57].
In this work, we focus on the first and fundamental
step of the three-pronged iterative approach, i.e., conceptual investigations of LAWS [58]. Here, we search for values incorporated into LAWS, which may be competing
against each other due to different stakeholder positions
across the CCW arena [69]. Thus, we pose the question:
" What values can be derived for MHC from the stakeholders' discourse in the 2018 Group of Governmental
Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems? "
Hence, we are interested in approaching MHC in
relation to its empirical context, constituted by various perspectives in the CCW debate, which reflect different values, and broader discursive narratives.
Understanding the expert's group debate as well as
the diverse notions of MHC also allows the formulation
of implications or priorities in technology development
as well as for the regulation and control of increasingly
autonomous weapon systems. Answering our research
question, we investigate the CCW GGE's divergent conceptual understandings of MHC of LAWS (first gap).
The divergent understandings of human-LAWS interaction can be deconstructed by choosing the theoretical
perspective of VSD (second gap) as well as a thorough
the investigation of CCW-relevant socio-technological
values and their interrelatedness (third gap). Our analysis of influential discourses and values leads to the
formulation of implications for the design of LAWS
(fourth gap).

Research Design
As we are interested in the question of how to retain
MHC of LAWS, we focused on the Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS, which meet in the forum of the
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. These
experts constitute the most relevant international body
DECEMBER 2020

∕

dedicated to understanding respective human-machine
interaction in a military context, and it is the main organizational forum for the conceptual debate regarding
autonomy and control with respect to lethal weaponry.
To answer the question of how MHC may be achieved
within this forum, we choose a discourse analytical
approach, grasping mindsets and conceptualizations of
the stakeholders. Our sample and method of analysis
are presented in the following.

To still be able to hold humans
responsible, a special focus on human
machine " touchpoints " is needed.

Data Collection
We concentrated on documents of the 2018 Group of
Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) (GGE on LAWS), thus restricting
our sample to working papers and statements by states
as well as non-governmental actors, which were formulated in the course of the first meeting, taking place
from April 9 to 13, 2018, and the second meeting, held
from August 27 to 31, 2018 [71]. In sum, we analyzed 43
documents (see Table 1). The number of member country statements needed to be reduced, not at least due to
repetitiveness of content and to reflect actors' relative
dominance in the discussion. Thus, we included strong
positions of U.S. and European countries such as the
U.K. As Western countries' statements were more frequently represented and accessible, our selection of
country statements tried to reflect a certain unequal distribution of participation. China's and Russia's positions
were reflected in the working papers they submitted.
Special attention was given to the U.S. due to their prevalence in the development of LAWS and network-centric
warfare. To reflect transnational work done in the arena
of the GGE on LAWS, we included statements by debatesteering non-governmental actors, again mirroring the
diversity of positions as well as dominance in the discourse. We also regarded positions of military-relevant
industry partners and marginalized critique by whistleblowers. This was useful to gain more insight into discursive narratives and actors' positions, serving as points of
reference for participants of the CCW expert group.
While the number of documents by non-state actors may
seem high in comparison to GGE documents, the latter
were considerably longer and offered more in-depth content. All sources are accessible online.

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2020