Blanchard, A. & Bruun, L. Autonomous Weapon Systems and AI-Enabled Decision Support Systems in Military Targeting (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2025).
Nadibaidze, A., Bode, I. & Zhang, Q. AI in Military Decision Support Systems. A Review of Developments and Debates (Center for War Studies, Univ. Southern Denmark, 2024).
Abraham, Y. ‘Lavender’: the AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza. +972 Magazine https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ (2024).
Report of the 2019 Session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems UN Document CCW/GGE.1/2019/3 (UN-CCW, 2019).
REAIM Call for Action (Responsible AI in the Military Domain Summit The Hague, 2023).
REAIM Blueprint for Action (Responsible AI in the Military Domain Summit Seoul, 2024).
Afina, Y. The Global Kaleidoscope of Military AI Governance. Decoding the 2024 Regional Consultations on Responsible AI in the Military Domain (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2024).
Trabucco, L. AI-enabled autonomous weapons and human control. Part I: human control and machine learning design and development. Int. Law Stud. 106, 534–578 (2025).
GGE on LAWS Rolling text, status date: 18 December 2025 (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, 2025).
Boutin, B. & Woodcock, T. in Research Handbook on Warfare and Artificial Intelligence (eds Geiß, R. & Lahmann, H.) 179–196 (Edward Elgar, 2024).
Lewis, D. A. & Sweeney, H. Exercising cognitive agency a legal framework concerning natural and artificial intelligence in armed conflict. (Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Conflict, 2025).
Taddeo, M. & Blanchard, A. A comparative analysis of the definitions of autonomous weapons systems. Sci. Eng. Ethics 28, 37 (2022).
Google Scholar
Davidovic, J. Rethinking human roles in AI warfare. Nat. Mach. Intell. 7, 1593–1595 (2025).
Google Scholar
Boulanin, V., Davison, N., Goussac, N. & Peldán Carlsson, M. Limits of Autonomy in Weapon Systems. Identifying Practical Elements of Human Control (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2020).
Suchman, L. A. Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
MacKenzie, D. A. Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (MIT Press, 2001).
Friedman, B. Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3, 16–23 (1996).
Google Scholar
Cummings, M. Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. In AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004); https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-6313
Bennett, D., Metatla, O., Roudaut, A. & Mekler, E. D. How does HCI understand human agency and autonomy? In Proc. 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–18 (ACM, 2023); https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580651
Suresh, H. & Guttag, J. in EAAMO21: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization 1–9 (ACM, 2021); https://doi.org/10.1145/3465416.3483305
Hutchins, E. Cognition in the Wild (MIT Press, 2006).
Conn, A. & Bode, I. Establishing human responsibility and accountability at early stages of the lifecycle for AI-based defence systems. Ethics Inf. Technol. 27, 51 (2025).
Google Scholar
IEEE Research Group on Issues of AI and Autonomy in Defence Systems. A Framework for Human Decision Making Through the Lifecycle of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems in Defense Applications (IEEE SA, 2024).
Heijnen, M. et al. in Responsible Use of AI in Military Systems (ed. Schraagen, J. M.) 17–36 (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2024); https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003410379-3
Regan, M. Military AI as sociotechnical systems. Articles of War https://lieber.westpoint.edu/military-ai-sociotechnical-systems/ (2025).
Bode, I. Falling under the radar: the problem of algorithmic bias and military applications of AI. ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/03/14/falling-under-the-radar-the-problem-of-algorithmic-bias-and-military-applications-of-ai/ (2024).
Bode, I. & Watts, T. Meaning-Less Human Control. The Consequences of Automation and Autonomy in Air Defence Systems (Center for War Studies, Univ. Southern Denmark, 2021).
Bode, I. & Watts, T. Loitering Munitions and Unpredictability: Autonomy in Weapon Systems and Challenges to Human Control (Center for War Studies, Univ. Southern Denmark, 2023).
UK Department for Science, Innovation & Technology Frontier AI: Capabilities and Risks—Discussion Paper (UK Government, 2025); https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/frontier-ai-capabilities-and-risks-discussion-paper/frontier-ai-capabilities-and-risks-discussion-paper
AI Index Steering Committee The AI Index 2025 Annual Report (Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, 2025); https://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/hai_ai_index_report_2025.pdf
Horowitz, M. C. Artificial Intelligence, international competition, and the balance of power. Tex. Nat. Secur. Rev. 1, 38–57 (2018).
Hunter, L. Y., Albert, C. D., Henningan, C. & Rutland, J. The military application of artificial intelligence technology in the United States, China, and Russia and the implications for global security. Def. Secur. Anal. 39, 207–232 (2023).
Google Scholar
Pava, J. N. et al. Mind the (Language) Gap. Mapping the Challenges of LLM Development in Low-Resource Language Contexts (Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, 2025); https://hai-production.s3.amazonaws.com/files/hai-taf-pretoria-white-paper-mind-the-language-gap.pdf
Logan, S. Tell me what you don’t know: large language models and the pathologies of intelligence analysis. Aust. J. Int. Aff. 78, 220–228 (2024).
Google Scholar
Data preparation overview. IBM https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/spss-modeler/saas?topic=preparation-data-overview (2021).
Changing lives through AI work. Humans in the Loop https://humansintheloop.org/ (2025).
Label your data. data annotation company with transparent per-object pricing. Label Your Data https://labelyourdata.com/ (2025).
Howcroft, D. & Rubery, J. ‘Bias in, bias out’: gender equality and the future of work debate. Labour Ind. J. Soc. Econ. Relat. Work 29, 213–227 (2019).
Blanchard, A. & Bruun, L. Bias in Military Artificial Intelligence (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2024).
Briviba, A., Frey, B., Moser, L. & Bieri, S. Governments manipulate official statistics: institutions matter. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 82, 102523 (2024).
Google Scholar
Barrett-Taylor, R. & Karner, N. AI Won’t Replace the General: Algorithms, Decision-Making and Battlefield Command (The Alan Turing Institute, 2025).
Deeks, A. S. The Double Black Box: National Security, Artificial Intelligence, and the Struggle for Democratic Accountability (Oxford Univ. Press, 2025).
McFarland, T. & Assaad, Z. Legal reviews of in situ learning in autonomous weapons. Ethics Inf. Technol. 25, 9 (2023).
Google Scholar
Gillespie, T. New technologies and design for the laws of armed conflict. RUSI J. 160, 50–56 (2015).
Google Scholar
Vestner, T. & Rossi, A. Legal reviews of war algorithms. Int. Law Stud. 97, 509–555 (2021).
Copeland, D., Liivoja, R. & Sanders, L. The utility of weapons reviews in addressing concerns raised by autonomous weapon systems. J. Confl. Secur. Law 28, 285–316 (2023).
Google Scholar
Woodcock, T. K. Human/machine(-learning) interactions, human agency and the international humanitarian law proportionality standard. Glob. Soc. 38, 100–121 (2024).
Google Scholar
Dorsey, J. & Moffett, L. in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law Vol. 27 (eds Krieger, H. et al.) 125–156 (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2025).
Klonowska, K. in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law Vol. 23 (eds Gill, T. D. et al.) 123–153 (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2022).
Dorsey, J. & Bo, M. AI-enabled decision-support systems in the joint targeting cycle: legal challenges, risks, and the human(e) dimension. Int. Law Stud. 107, 184–227 (2025).
Dorsey, J. Proportionality under Pressure: AI-Based Decision-Support Systems, the Reasonable Commander Standard and Human(e) Judgment in Targeting (Global Commission on Responsible AI in the Military Domain, Expert Policy Note Series, 2025).
Meerveld, H. W., Lindelauf, R. H. A., Postma, E. O. & Postma, M. The irresponsibility of not using AI in the military. Ethics Inf. Technol. 25, 14 (2023).
Google Scholar
Lewis, L. & Ilachinski, A. Leveraging AI to Mitigate Civilian Harm (Center for Autonomy and AI, 2022); https://www.cna.org/analyses/2022/02/leveraging-ai-to-mitigate-civilian-harm
Greipl, A. R. Artificial intelligence for better protection of civilians during urban warfare. Lieber Institute West Point: Articles of War https://lieber.westpoint.edu/artificial-intelligence-better-protection-civilians-urban-warfare (2024).
Assaad, Z. & Dorsey, J. Designing lawful military AI: technical and legal reflections on decision-support and autonomous weapon systems. Perry World House https://perryworldhouse.upenn.edu/news-and-insight/designing-lawful-military-ai-technical-and-legal-reflections-on-decision-support-and-autonomous-weapon-systems/ (2025).
Frenkel, S. & Odenheimer, N. Israel’s AI experiments in gaza war raise ethical concerns. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/technology/israel-gaza-ai.html (2025).
Frankel Pratt, S. When AI decides who lives and dies. Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/02/israel-military-artificial-intelligence-targeting-hamas-gaza-deaths-lavender/ (2024).
Erskine, T. Before algorithmic Armageddon: anticipating immediate risks to restraint when AI infiltrates decisions to wage war. Aust. J. Int. Aff. 78, 175–190 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kwik, J. Digital yes-men: how to deal with sycophantic military AI? Glob. Policy 16, 467–473 (2025).
Google Scholar
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1977).
Raji, I. D., Kumar, I. E., Horowitz, A. & Selbst, A. The fallacy of AI functionality. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 959–972 (ACM, 2022).
Bode, I. & Bhila, I. The problem of algorithmic bias in AI-based military decision support systems. ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/09/03/the-problem-of-algorithmic-bias-in-ai-based-military-decision-support-systems/ (2024).
Grand-Clément, S. Artificial Intelligence Beyond Weapons. Application and Impact of AI in the Military Domain (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2023).
Marcus, G. Deep learning: a critical appraisal. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.00631 (2018).
Tsamados, A. et al. The ethics of algorithms: key problems and solutions. AI Soc. 37, 215–230 (2022).
Google Scholar
Pontin, J. Greedy, brittle, opaque, and shallow: the downsides to deep learning. Wired https://www.wired.com/story/greedy-brittle-opaque-and-shallow-the-downsides-to-deep-learning/ (2018).
Criado Perez, C. Invisible Women. Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men (Vintage, 2019).
Chandler, K. Does Military AI Have Gender? Understanding Bias and Promoting Ethical Approaches in Military Applications of AI (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2021).
Biggio, B. & Roli, F. Wild patterns: ten years after the rise of adversarial machine learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2018.07.023 (2017).
Elsayed, G. F. et al. Adversarial examples that fool both computer vision and time-limited humans. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.08195 (2018).
Souly, A. et al. Poisoning attacks on LLMs require a near-constant number of poison samples. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.07192 (2025).
Renic, N. Tragic reflection, political wisdom, and the future of algorithmic war. Aust. J. Int. Aff. 78, 247–256 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bode, I. Human–Machine Interaction and Human Agency in the Military Domain (Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2025).
Davis, J. L. Elevating humanism in high-stakes automation: experts-in-the-loop and resort-to-force decision making. Aust. J. Int. Aff. 78, 200–209 (2024).
Google Scholar
Gerlich, M. AI tools in society: impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies 15, 6 (2025).
Google Scholar
Goussac, N. Responsible behaviour in military AI starts with responsible procurement. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2025/military-ai-responsible-procurement (2025).
AutoPractices project. Sustaining and strengthening human agency in the military domain: best practices toolkit for policymakers, developers, and users of AI-based systems. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17671715 (2026).
Johnson, M., Hawley, J. K. & Bradshaw, J. M. Myths of automation part 2: some very human consequences. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29, 82–85 (2014).
Google Scholar
Hawley, J. K. & Mares, A. L. in Designing Soldier Systems: Current Issues in Human Factors (eds Savage-Knepshield, P. et al.) 3–34 (Ashgate, 2012).
