By Ayman Okeil
The increasing reliance on artificial intelligence in the military domain is leading to clear challenges to human rights, particularly the right to life, privacy, and other rights protected under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Various States have used AI applications in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well as in the planning of military operations, the identification of military targets, and the munitions required to strike specific sites. Other States have also integrated AI into Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).
As reliance on these applications in the military field has grown, the United Nations has warned of the risks that excessive dependence in this domain may cause. On 5 June 2025, the UN Secretary-General issued a report titled “Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain and Its Implications for International Peace and Security.” Among other findings, the report noted that excessive trust in AI could increase risks and expose civilians to random attacks and unintended escalation. It also stated that the use of AI in the military domain may result in indiscriminate use of force. There are further concerns that AI could be used to develop or produce biological weapons.
The Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council also studied the impact of new technologies on human rights. It emphasized that States must refrain, without hesitation, from developing or deploying autonomous weapon systems unless their operation is subject to meaningful human control. The Committee called on States to adopt clear, binding regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance with international legal standards when adopting technology and emerging techniques. Discussing the risks that AI use in the military domain may entail is not a matter of exaggeration, sensationalism, or inflating matters; these risks have been recognized by Cameron Stanley, Chief Digital and AI Officer at the U.S. Department of Defense, when he said, “The rapid adoption of military AI is not without risk,” in response to a question about whether AI was responsible for the deaths of more than 180 girls and boys in the airstrike on the Al-Tayyiba Tree School in the city of Minab. Cameron attempted to justify that position by arguing that, throughout history, humans commit mistakes and machines commit mistakes. He added: “What I am trying to achieve is the best possible mix of human and machine.”
Potential risks also include those related to the right to privacy. In this regard, the company Anthropic urged the U.S. Department of Defense to ban the use of its Claude system for spying on Americans, particularly regarding the analysis of individuals’ location history records, financial information, and other large-scale datasets held by the U.S. military. Following these demands, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, criticized the company and stated in a post on the X platform that “the Department of Defense directs Anthropic to be designated as a company that poses a risk to the national security supply chain, and no contractor, supplier, or partner that works with the U.S. Department of Defense may conduct business with Anthropic.”
In addition, when the British Army carried out what it described as a successful trial in Estonia during NATO exercises, using an AI system called Asgard to help British soldiers make decisions faster regarding military targets, the British Army reportedly concluded that the system would make it ten times more lethal over the next ten years. These are not merely isolated examples; several armed forces have begun using AI in the military domain.
Therefore, increasing the use of AI in the military raises questions about the limits of compliance with international law, particularly international humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has addressed the question of the applicability of international humanitarian law to the use of AI in the military domain, concluding that these principles apply to all means and methods of warfare, including the use of AI technologies. Any use of force must comply with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, including the distinction between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other. In General Assembly resolution 239/79, adopted on 24 December 2024, the United Nations reaffirmed the applicability of international law to all stages of the lifecycle of AI, including uses in the military domain. Accordingly, I hope that Member States will respect this guidance and decisions and use AI responsibly in the military domain, since it cannot be prevented from being used by applying the principle of human control and accountability at all times.
English 
العربية