Coupling levels of abstraction in understanding meaningful human control of autonomous weapons: a two-tiered approach

The international debate surrounding autonomous weapon systems (AWS) is often stalled by a focus on the concept of 'full autonomy'—the idea that a machine might select and engage targets without human intervention. Critics often argue that this creates an accountability gap, leading to calls for a total ban. However, this paper argues that such a focus is misguided because it ignores how military operations and engineering design actually function in practice. By treating autonomy as a binary state, the current discourse fails to account for the complex, distributed nature of modern military decision-making.

To resolve these conceptual tensions, the author proposes a two-tiered framework for Meaningful Human Control (MHC) based on systems theory and systems engineering. The first tier is the operational level, which recognizes that military actions are never truly autonomous but are instead constrained by pre-mission planning, rules of engagement, and organizational hierarchies. The second tier is the design level, which focuses on the technical architecture of the system. This level ensures that the system is 'reason-responsive'—meaning it is designed to track and reflect the moral intentions of human agents, such as designers and commanders, throughout its development and deployment history.

By coupling these two levels, the author demonstrates that 'full' autonomy is not inherently problematic. When an AWS is designed to be responsive to human moral reasons and is embedded within a rigorous operational framework, the system does not replace human control; rather, it functions as a component within a larger, controlled sociotechnical network. This perspective shifts the focus from banning technology based on its level of autonomy to ensuring that systems are designed and deployed in ways that maintain clear lines of accountability and moral responsibility.