The United Reformed Church Children’s and Youth Work and Communications Teams have launched a new Advent and Christmas kit for churches to engage with families.
Advent Hope & Joy is a low cost kit that can be given to families to show that the church remembers them, cares for them and wants to connect with them, and are sized so that they can be posted through letterboxes.
Holmes Lane,
Rustington,
BN16 2PY
What did COP29 achieve? The COP29 summit was a crucial test of global commitments to mobilise resources to avoid the severe damage to populations, species and eco-systems that would accompany a global warming above 1.5 degrees. COP29 failed this test. It identified only $300 billion of the $1.3 trillion of annual external finance calculated to be necessary by 2035. Intense negotiations ran 33 hours beyond the allotted time, completing in Baku at 2:30am on Sunday morning. Some senior negotiators had only managed one or two hours sleep in 48 hours. The outcome was seen by many as a “betrayal” while others considered it as a first step forward in difficult international circumstances. Prior to the start of COP29, the leaders of the JPIT partner churches called for action in three areas: – Climate finance and debt relief Loss and Damage funding UK leadership on climate action Here is our assessment of outcomes in these areas: – The agreement on climate finance $2.4 trillion per year is calculated to be the cost to emerging economies and developing countries of transition to net zero, requiring $1 trillion per year of external finance by 2030 and $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. This New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) is based on what the world needs, rather than the elastic ideas of what governments think that they can afford to pay. Developed countries must provide the largest part of this external finance, firstly because they owe a historical debt to the rest of the world for causing the majority of carbon emissions, and secondly, because much of the funding is needed quickly to turn us away from current emissions pathways that spell disaster. The $300 billion per year pledge includes grants, loans and contributions from the private sector. Our churches have joined with Christian Aid and others to express alarm over increasing debt of many developing countries. Grant funding must make up the majority of this investment in developing countries. They cannot afford further debt to tackle a crisis for which, historically, rich nations bear the greatest responsibility. The Loss and Damage Fund During COP29, there were only three new contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund that now stands at $730 million – a drop in the ocean.1 In addition, there was no agreement on contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund from finance raised towards the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance. On the plus side, mechanisms were agreed to enable disbursement from the fund to commence in 2025, but our Churches will continue to call for polluters to pay up to recompense communities for damage resulting from severe climate impacts. A deal on carbon markets (Article 6 of the Paris Agreement) A deal has been reached on carbon markets. For 10 years, the COP process tried (and failed) to work out mechanisms for a global carbon market that would encourage companies and governments to invest in energy transition in developing nations in return for credits against their own emissions. This could unlock billions of private capital and spur green investment. But if the conditions are not stringent then poor quality projects will undermine climate action rather than help. They could take pressure off high emitters to reduce emissions or double-count for green investment that was bound to take place anyway. There is a danger that many more tracts of land and forest might be privatised in Africa for such projects, overriding the needs of local communities. A deal has been done at COP29, but going forward, we must ensure that the projects permitted under new rules benefit both communities and the climate. UK leadership on climate action? On the first day of the leaders’ summit, UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer flew in to announce what was widely perceived as an ambitious UK carbon pledge that set the tone for others to do more. That is to be welcomed. During the negotiations, Ed Miliband was appointed by the COP President as an intermediary (alongside Brazilian minister, Ana Toni) to land a deal at Baku. It will now be vital for the UK to turn pledges into delivery. We can and must do more on climate finance in particular. Developing countries shut out of discussions There was real anger from many developing countries at having been shut out of discussions around the figure for contributions of the developed nations to the NCQG on climate finance, until it was announced on the last day. Much of this anger was directed at the COP29 President and Secretariat. COP President, Mukhtar Babayev, has in turn put the blame on ‘certain Western voices’ while appearing to exonerate the UK in this respect. This is by no means the first time that small island states and developing countries have felt shut out of COP discussions, and it will further fuel questions as to whether this summit process could be done differently and be more inclusive. In summary COP29 could have been a disaster. As it is, it has concluded a deal that is woefully short on climate finance, and does not inspire confidence with respect to funding the $1.3 trillion needed to support developing countries to decarbonise. We will now enter a difficult period in negotiations as a new US administration is expected to take a hostile approach to collaborative action on climate, and could pull the US out of the Paris Agreement altogether. COP30 next year will take place in the Amazonian city of Belém do Pará. The location reminds us that we must preserve our God-given creation and that we face tipping points beyond which the planet’s eco-system will fail to keep warming in check. As we look towards that summit, we pray that nations are not distracted by US politics, but keep their focus on the urgent need to invest together in our common future. Source
A draft of the text commits to $1.3 trillion of climate finance per year by 2035, but it is shockingly weak on where this money will come from. Very little is pledged by developed countries. Chiara Martinelli, Director of Climate Action Network Europe, branded the $250 billion target inadequate: “A $250 billion annual target by 2035, spread across all actors, is not even breadcrumbs… Rich countries must return to the negotiation room to step up, pay up, and deliver real climate finance. This text is unacceptable.” Illari Aragon, Climate Justice Policy Lead with Christian Aid states “The finance number is much too low and the crucial issue of loss and damage has been removed. This current text is morally unacceptable considering it is the rich world that has caused the climate crisis and the global south that is bearing the brunt of it.” A much better deal is needed. We will assess the final text from COP29 and report on Monday. Source
“Death is the final taboo”; isn’t that what they say? Well, perhaps not so much at the moment. A new bill asking MPs to consider legalising assisted dying is coming before parliament for a debate on the 29th November. Despite being a private members bill (a bill that is not proposed by the government, but by a backbench MP) the “The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill” has provoked much debate in the headlines and on topical conversation media. This is, however, not a new debate. It was last addressed in the House of Commons in 2015, but has also been debated in the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the House of Lords in recent years, as well as in the Jersey and Isle of Man legislatures. Each time similar arguments have surfaced. Arguments around individual liberty and choice have always been front and centre as deeply moving stories of suffering, grief and fear were shared. Counter arguments about societal consequences, slippery slopes, inadequate palliative care, anxiety about coercion and economic factors also enter the fray, often causing deep hesitancy towards a change in the law. Voices of faith leaders have also frequently entered the fray. Christians in particular have spoken about the sanctity of life, about God’s presence in the face of suffering, and about the biblical directive to protect the vulnerable. It’s less common, although not unheard of, for Christians to support proposed changes in law. In 2015 George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, said that while life is sacred, there is ‘nothing sacred about suffering in itself’ – and no one should be ‘obliged to endure it’. As a former local minister, I’ve spent days (and on occasion nights) sitting by the beds of those coming to the end of their lives. I think it’s fair to say that each experience has been unique. I’ve witnessed profound peace, confusion, despair, acceptance, pain and fear. Mercifully I’ve never witnessed anyone begging to be able to end it all – although I know other ministers that have – I have, however, prayed with people who have asked God to “take me soon”. A number of years ago, while I was still training for ministry, I remember visiting a lady called “Margaret” who had been in hospital for several months before being moved into a hospice where she was expected to die, but this too had lasted far longer than anyone had expected. She had no relatives that lived in the country, and the few friends she still had were too frail to visit. I saw her a handful times over this period, but by the end it was clear to me she was physically, emotionally and mentally exhausted, she had had enough, and said she wanted God to “take me now”. I honestly can’t say whether she would have considered ending her own life if it could have been done legally and peacefully – I suspect she would not have – but you would have had to be a fairly cold-hearted person not to have had some level of understanding, if that had been her will. I’m just grateful it was not a conversation I was, or realistically could have been invited into – I simply prayed for peace to come, and for Margaret’s suffering to end. She died a few days later. I was reminded of Margaret when I read the reflections of a palliative care doctor who wrote about of a patient of hers that had cancer, and who was facing a similarly drawn-out death, but that had expressed a regret that she lived in a country where she could not end her own suffering. The doctor spoke of how it seemed to her then, as it does now, that her patient was suffering “a staggeringly futile form of endurance, a cruel distortion of what life should be”.[1] Yet despite having tremendous sympathy in this case, her observations about the shortcomings of palliative care in the UK more generally left her deeply concerned about any changes in the law at the moment. This is just one person, for whom the argument surrounding defective NHS systems and inconsistent practices in palliative care are paramount. For her, offering someone a choice between taking their own life, or risking inadequate end of life care, is no choice at all. For other people, different arguments help sway their position – I wonder what arguments speak most powerfully to you? The truth is many Churches are unmoved from their historical position of opposing assisted dying. For some, I’m certain it’s because they have given time to consider all the multifaceted arguments, but don’t feel their previous misgivings have been, or even could be, changed. But I wonder if for some, it is in part because we have just not thought about it for many years. I’m not suggesting for a moment that I believe these Churches should be changing their minds on assisted dying, as having researched this quite thoroughly over the last few months, I am yet to be persuaded that legalising assisted dying might ever be right, but I do worry our voices on the subject will start to lose integrity if we don’t continue to listen and engage with the conversation about assisted dying faithfully, prayerfully and compassionately. All the denominations that make up the Joint Public Issues Team have encouraged individuals and churches to consider the issue of assisted dying afresh, and would welcome feedback on your prayerful reflections. Careful listening to all sides of any debate (perhaps especially to those with whom we disagree) is becoming an increasingly rare practice in today’s often polarised culture – but it is a vital exercise that shapes our thinking, strengthens our arguments and builds greater understanding towards those with whom we might not ordinarily relate. Of course, we should also consider the possibility that God might just speak to us through unexpected sources; indeed, in my experience, this is more common that we might like to admit. In […]
200 cyclists have arrived at Baku, Azerbaijan, having cycled almost 4,000 miles from Paris. We need their passion to be matched in the committee rooms where delegations are hammering out compromises to rescue COP29. The Azerbaijan COP has been described as the ‘climate finance summit’ but progress so far is not good. $1.3 trillion per year of climate finance is the figure being talked about in Baku. $1.3 trillion is the external finance each year by 2035 that will be necessary for developing countries and emerging economies (middle income countries) to achieve net zero pathways. (In case you are wondering, the figure of $1 trillion discussed previously in this blog is the external finance needed by 2030 rather than 2035.) There are two big questions being hammered out in Baku. The first is whether this will all come from developed nations or whether a deal can be struck with China to obtain a voluntary commitment from them for grant assistance. The second, how much will be in the form of grants (rather than loans, export credits or other forms of finance). At the moment the negotiations have reached an impasse. This is not unusual at this stage of a COP, but there is a risk of spectacular and damaging failure. It was only yesterday that governments were able to properly focus on the hard negotiations over top line issues. Some top level government ministers are flying in with just two and half days to go before COP29 will agree a final package. The ministers must not fail us. With 200 activists cycling thousands of miles to Baku, lets pray that our negotiators go the extra mile to deliver the climate finance needed to set the world on a path to net-zero. Source
This is the first of a regular update from COP29. The last two days have given us high-profile media displays as world leaders gathered to set the tone for the next two weeks. Here are two quick observations on the opening session. The UK provided a welcome highlight at the start of COP29 While too many leaders have stayed away this time, the UK has chosen to show its cards ahead of the start of tricky negotiations between states. Kier Starmer arrived in Baku to announce a UK pledge of an 81% cut in emissions by 2035.1 This is a positive note at such an early stage of proceedings. It is a sufficiently significant commitment to cause others to sit up and take note. In my article last week, I urged that the UK government demonstrate strong political leadership and pledge at least an 81% cut in emissions. So far, so good. Now the UK must also lead on negotiations on a New Collective Quantified Goal for climate finance, and seek to ensure that oil and gas companies contribute to compensation for loss and damage to communities affected by climate impacts.2 The President of Azerbaijan struck a discordant note The President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, reacted to Azerbaijan being described as a ‘petro-state’. He hit out at the hypocrisy of the ‘fake news’ media of the nation that, in recent years, has become the largest oil and gas producer in the world; the United States. He also described oil, gas, sun and wind as ‘gifts from God’ insisting that the market needs them all. In doing so makes light of the scientific evidence concerning the urgent situation that we face, and he closes his ears to civil society voices across developing, newly industrialised and developed countries alike. President Aliyev’s message will have set the tone for some countries that will likely seek to hide behind anticipated US intransigence under a new President. This discordant note risks undermining the whole tenor of the opening speech of Mukhtar Babayev, the President of COP29, who stated that “we are on a road to ruin” and therefore the people of every continent “are waiting for us to show leadership and they cannot afford the cost of delay”. The President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, gets my award for ‘fossil of the day’. Today, COP gets down to work as delegations meet in numerous technical committees. Which narrative will prevail? Will President Ilham Aliyev’s praise of the markets, win through, or COP President, Mukhtar Babayev’s warning that COP29 is a test of the state of multilateralism in our world today? Sign up to our social media platforms (below) to get updates as COP29 progresses. And finally … The UK is a part of the global economy in which we each play a small part. While our government must take measures at home, everything that you and I buy has a carbon footprint, including food and goods produced overseas. That is why COP29 matters to each of us, as well of course, to those living in parts of the world that are already severely impacted by climate change. Check out our Social Media pages for great short videos (reels) that remind us why COP29 matters. Instagram, Facebook This is in line with the advice of the UK independent Committee on Climate Change. ↩︎The UK does not yet have adequate plans to bring about transition to reduce emissions by 81% of 1990 levels. ↩︎Source
Our Churches are committed to caring for creation and to tackling climate change. We lament the increasing frequency and severity of devastating hurricanes, flooding and droughts, and the impact they are having on people. Record temperatures and low rainfall have impaired food security, livelihoods, and energy production in many regions of the world. In July 2024, global temperatures reached unprecedented levels.[1] COP29 is an opportunity for governments to coordinate action to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. They must make pledges with purpose and integrity to avert climate-related suffering for this and future generations. Developing nations will need resources for adaptation and to gain equitable access to the technology for low-carbon development. This will require new sources of finance. We support the call for debt relief for low-income countries being made by Christian Aid and other agencies.[2] We join with faith communities across the world in calling for substantial additional funding for the Loss and Damage fund. We support the principle that polluters should pay for loss and damage. We want to see progress at Baku on new taxes and other sources of revenue to resource global action. In all this, UK leadership is vital. In 2021, COP26 in Glasgow was a significant moment even though the summit failed to gain consensus in some important respects. We urge our government to show leadership again through a renewed commitment to the framework established in Paris in 2015 on reducing emissions. As church communities in the UK and across the globe we are committed to prayerful action. We need COP29 to deliver concrete actions to support the pledges that have been made already and to secure new commitments for the good of all people and the planet. Revd Philip Brooks Deputy General Secretary (Mission), United Reformed Church Revd Helen Cameron President of the Conference of the Methodist Church Carolyn Godfrey Vice-President of the Conference of the Methodist Church Revd Lynn Green General Secretary, The Baptist Union of Great Britain [1] https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/global-drought-threatens-food-supplies-and-energy-production-2024-10-02_en [2] UK charities call on government to tackle climate breakdown and debt crises – Christian Aid | Mediacentre Source
We are days away from one of the most important events of the international calendar – the COP Climate Summit. Countries can take actions independently but it is only by setting goals and implementing actions together and agreeing to be accountable for those actions, that we can hope to drive down carbon emissions across the globe. An updated scientific report from the United Nations tells us that cuts in carbon emissions of 42% by 2030 and 57% by 2035 are needed to get on track for staying below 1.5°C of global warming. The longer we delay, the tougher the challenge. Therefore our expectations from this month’s COP29 meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan, are for plans not promises. Specifically we want the following:- To address the greatest challenge of our generation we need an unprecedented level of investment. Developing countries must be able to quadruple current spending on transition in order to reach targets by 2030. This requires external finance and hence the proposed New Collective Quantified Goal for climate finance must have ambition behind it. It must raise $trillions not $billions. It must come on track soon and therefore we need COP29 to resolve disagreements over what forms this funding should take and who pays. We need a lot more funding to the Loss and Damage Fund to help communities recover from climate disasters such as the recent Helene and Milton hurricanes. Substantial pledges by states would demonstrate confidence in this new fund. Loss and damage must also get funding from new sources including from the New Collective Quantified Goal for climate finance. Nations must make pledges on carbon targets for 2035 from February 2025 onwards (in advance of COP30 in Brazil next year). The UK says that it will make its pledge early at this COP summit. It must be a pledge of at least an 81% reduction in CO2 emissions as advised by the Committee on Climate Change. But crucially we will also be looking for actions from the UK government over the next year to demonstrate that it will reverse the slow progress on the current 2030 pledge. Our government must lead at home and at COP29. Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is a veteran of the COP summit process and could be an effective mediator when the going gets tough. Nations must agree the phase out of oil and gas. The UK’s influence in this and other important areas will be keenly watched. We will be reporting on progress at COP29 over the two weeks of negotiations. JPIT will bring you the stories and policy demands coming out of nations that are at the frontline of climate disaster. We pray for good news for the planet from COP29. Once the summit has concluded we will be among Christian communities across the globe who demand that their governments to put words into action. Source
Reflecting on the Budget The Let’s End Poverty campaign, which many churches are supporting, had called for a Budget that prioritised the poorest. This was not it. Everyone in the UK, including the least well off, will benefit from the increased spending on public services, which will certainly make a big difference to many people experiencing poverty. However, despite announcing over £70Bn a year greater in spending, it was difficult to find money targeted directly at improving the lives of the poorest in the UK, nor was progress made in restoring the international aid budget to its target of 0.7%. Lived experience of poverty In the run up to the Budget we talked with people experiencing poverty to get their views on what a good Budget would look like. It is no surprise that there were the range of concerns about climate change, the economy, defence, and immigration that can be found in any group of UK citizens, but when it came to issues directly impacting on poverty there were three themes. There was a call for people needing benefits to be treated with respect. People wanted an end to the rhetoric that treats the poorest as lazy, or not ‘properly’ disabled or simply cheats. While the Budget contained a familiar crack-down on benefit fraud, there was a welcome acknowledgement from the Chancellor that the rise in fraud is driven by organised crime exploiting the weaknesses in the Universal Credit system. Group members recognised that we are in difficult times, but wished to see some money directed at alleviating poverty, be that an end to the two-child rule, increases in benefits, or an extension to free school meals. These would have indicated that poverty is on the new government’s agenda and provide hope for the longer term. A reduction in monthly debt repayments that can be taken from Universal Credit payments and additional investment in breakfast clubs represent small very low-cost steps forward. The most specific concern was the change to how disability is assessed which was planned by the previous government. These changes remain in the plans, and are expected to cut £2Bn from disability benefits starting next year. This means that over the next 3 years an estimated 400,000 disabled people will have their benefits cut by around £5,000 a year. It is important to recognise this group has a high incidence of poverty, are three times more likely to face hunger than the general population, and make up 7 in 10 of visitors to foodbanks. Acknowledging reality The £70Bn of additional spending announced in the Budget did not go on alleviating poverty. It was largely about addressing known problems in the public finances and especially public services. In 2023 the independent Institute for Government rated every major public service bar schools as performing worse than 12 years previously, with insufficient funding for improvement. The largest service, the NHS, was struggling and both the criminal justice system and local government where widely acknowledged to be in crisis. The March 2024 Budget partially protected the NHS, but planned deep cuts in almost every department from 2026 onwards – though did not set out how those cuts would be achieved. This prompted the Chair of the Office for Budgetary Responsibility to describe the plans as “worse than fiction” on the grounds that at least “someone has bothered to write fiction”. There is a row about what was known about before the election, but during the election campaign it was always clear that the next government would have to cut, borrow, tax or a combination of all three. Sadly, no major party would engage with the issue and instead, they preferred carefully worded promises about freezing or cutting (some) taxes. If politicians want to understand why public trust in them is at an all-time low, all parties may want to reflect on why they made those choices. After this Budget the UK is a higher tax economy (38% GDP in tax, up around 1% in this Budget and around 3% since the pandemic), but still has significantly lower tax levels than our EU neighbours. The spending is front loaded, which means that while there are large rises this year and next, after that most departments will not see real terms increases in their budgets. The hope is that this slug of money will stabilise our public services and create a platform for improvement. It is by no means certain to work, and the business that the new taxes mainly fall on may struggle, but at least there is now a belated engagement with reality. The purpose of change The Budget represents a major long-term change in our economy. It is worth reflecting on more than the predictions of how much money we will have and how fast economic growth will increase it, which the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and Treasury documents necessarily focus on. The economy must have a purpose beyond growth. From a Christian perspective it might be judged against how it enables people to flourish, to fulfil the potential that God has put within them. In the context of our society, well-functioning schools, hospitals, and even courts and prisons are part of that, and this Budget prioritises these. It must also offer sufficient support to enable the least well off to thrive and contribute to society. The most important number not mentioned in the Budget documents is 14.4 million – which is the number of people experiencing poverty in the UK. Despite spending £70Bn more per year, the Budget is unlikely to move that number. For Further Analysis on the Government Budget, check out the latest episode on the 10 minutes on podcast here: Source
When I was growing up, my Dad believed that it was his duty as our father to ensure that my brother and I received a robust and culturally rich education. That is to say, he made sure that we were brought up watching the Star Wars films. This meant that Luke Skywalker, Yoda and Jaja Binks were some of my childhood heroes. My brother and I could be found in our back garden engaged in fierce, intergalactic combat, sparring with toy lightsabers. For many of us, the words ‘star wars’ mean nostalgic films, centred around loveable characters on feel good adventures. Films in which, against all the odds, our heroes reliably succeed in restoring the balance of good versus evil in the universe. Today however, ‘star wars’ or ‘drone wars’ are not just the stuff of movies, but are the new frontier of warfare as a result of technological advancement and rising conflict between superpowers. While in the UK we live in relative peace, the state of conflict globally is high. You can’t open a newspaper or any form of social media without seeing heart-breaking news of the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. While these are the conflicts that we are most aware of, the tragic reality is that these aren’t the only wars happening currently. Indeed, according to analysis by the NGO ACLED (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data) in July 2024 one in seven people in the world have been exposed to conflict in 2024, and 50 countries are facing extreme, high or turbulent levels of conflict[i]. This marks an increase in the level of conflict globally. It’s not just that people around the world are facing more political and climate instability in addition to more armed conflict; we are seeing heightened tensions between the global superpowers of the US, Russia and China. This climate of fear and tension is driving countries around the world to increase military spending and arms production, and consensus around arms control and international law is being lost. In 2023 global military spending leapt up by 6.9% to $2443 billion[ii], at the same time as international development aid consistently failed to meet the increasing humanitarian need. From a humanitarian perspective there is an overwhelming interest in working to end conflict, in redirecting spending on war to humanitarian issues, and rebuilding global political will around arms control and international law. However, there is very little desire from key international players to do this, which is particularly concerning as technology is pushing war into uncharted territories. War in space, conflict played out on the web and the use of killer robots are not the stuff of science-fiction any more. The technology already exists and in some cases is already being used in conflicts around the world. International law is lagging behind these advancements. This means that, as people who care about working for global peace, tackling climate change, and reducing global poverty, we need to confront these new ethical questions, and challenges. With countries stocking up on weapons, we need people like you and me to speak up on these issues. Throughout history the church has consistently played an important role in advocating for peace, in speaking up for the sanctity of life, in promoting arms control, shaping human rights and international law. We believe that Christians and the church have a role to play again. We must be a part of the dialogue around these new and complex ethical questions, to look for peaceful solutions, and to work with our politicians to ensure that the UK works for a future where technology is used for the good of humanity. This is why JPIT is launching the Future of Arms project. The project comprises a series of educational resources: briefings, blogs, podcasts, webinars and videos. You can learn about these important issues and find out how you and your church can be part of working towards a more peaceful future, where technology is used not to take life, but to improve and even save it. To borrow some of the wisdom from Yoda, “to be Jedi is to face the truth, and choose. Give off light, or darkness, Padawan. Be a candle, or the night.” In a world where there are immense challenges, it is easy to feel powerless and to give into fear, but let’s choose to be light, to work together to be lights in the darkness. Join us as we seek to use our influence and our voices to create a more peaceful future. Find more at jpit.uk/futureofarms [i] https://acleddata.com/conflict-index/index-july-2024/ [ii]https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/global-military-spending-surges-amid-war-rising-tensions-and-insecurity This blog was written by a former JPIT intern Sienna Sexton Source
Autonomous weapons might seem like the far-off stuff of sci-fi and dystopian pop culture, but autonomous weapons in various shapes and sizes, are being used and developed across the world. This raises serious issues and concerns over ethics, responsibility and the law, which emphasise the need for greater restrictions and guidance over the use and development of these weapons. What is an autonomous weapon? An autonomous weapon is a type of weapon that can search for, identify, track, and attack a target without human intervention. These weapons require a human to activate them and input a target, but the weapon uses artificial intelligence alone to find and attack the target. This happens by sensors and software searching for the target. If the weapon loses its communication link, the operator will not know exactly where, when or who/what it will attack. Autonomous weapons are sometimes called ‘killer robots’. While some autonomous weapons have existed for years, they have been limited in terms of length of operation, geographical limits and certain environments. This is changing as technological advances have enabled these weapons to be developed further and new weapons with advanced capabilities to be created. Examples of autonomous weapons include drones equipped with AI, stationary autonomous guns as well as unmanned vehicles capable of carrying weapons. Where are autonomous weapons currently used? Although it is hard to know, and technological developments are being kept quiet, it is widely believed that autonomous weapons are already being used. Foreign Policy Magazine reported back in May 2022 that Israel, Russia, South Korea and Turkey had already used autonomous weapons.1 Countries including Australia, the UK, China and the US were also listed as investing heavily in developing autonomous weapons.2 In a more recent article, the BBC reported on drones with autonomous weapons being used by Russia in Ukraine, stating that ‘the move to drone warfare is a combination of necessity and innovation’.3 Autonomous weapons are here, and they are taking lives. What are the issues with autonomous weapons? There are many ethical and legal issues with autonomous weapons, particularly around accountability and responsibility. There are varying degrees of autonomy and, on the whole, militaries will want to use weapons with autonomous capabilities, with a person in the loop who permits the machine to strike a target (after the machine has identified and selected a target). The concern here is that people tend to place too much trust in technology. What awareness of the battlefield will the operator (potentially located thousands of miles away) have in practice? If communication links are broken or if fast decisions are required, a military advantage could be gained by dispensing with the person in the loop. Using a weapon to identify and eliminate an enemy target autonomously weakens the link between action and responsibility that is intrinsic to centuries of accepted ethics on warfare and international law. Autonomous weapons pose issues for legal responsibility, particularly when things go wrong. In war, things inevitably do go wrong, regardless of whether a human or a machine is in control. Accountability is much harder when a human did not fire the weapon or order the specific attack. If international law is broken, the wrong target is killed or a civilian bus is attacked instead of a military vehicle, who is responsible and who can explain what happened? The main ethical issues around autonomous weapons are over enabling life and death decisions to be made by technology, sensors and software, completely removing any agency, context or feelings out of decisions. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) describe this as a ‘dehumanising process that undermines our values and our shared humanity’. 4 Do we want a battlefield to become one where humans are reduced by technology to ‘datasets’, reducing human agency, context or feelings? What are we calling for? We are calling for greater restrictions and guidance on making the use of artificial intelligence safer, and for the well-being of people and planet. The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross are calling on political leaders to urgently establish new international rules on autonomous weapon systems, to protect humanity.5 Many governments, NGOs and faith groups have joined the call for negotiations to begin with legally binding prohibitions and restrictions on autonomous weapons. They also called for clear restrictions for all autonomous weapons to ensure compliance with international law and ethics. This would include limiting the use of where, when, for how long, strength of force, and the types of targets for which these weapons are used, as well as ensuring effective human supervision, intervention and deactivation. “Despite the increasing reports of testing and use of various types of autonomous weapon systems, it is not too late to take action.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres and ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric What now? Engage further by learning more about these issues in different ways with JPIT’s Future of Arms project. Sign the Stop Killer Robots petition Call on government leaders around the world to launch negotiations for new international law on autonomy in weapons systems – to ensure human control in the use of force and to prohibit machines that target people, reducing us to objects, stereotypes, and data points. Further reading: What you need to know about autonomous weapons | ICRC Killer Robots | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems Are Here—and We Need to Regulate Them (foreignpolicy.com) Ukraine thrown into war’s bleak future as drones open new front – BBC News UN and Red Cross call for restrictions on autonomous weapon systems to protect humanity | UN News First Committee Approves New Resolution on Lethal Autonomous Weapons, as Speaker Warns ‘An Algorithm Must Not Be in Full Control of Decisions Involving Killing’ | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases (un.org) Annie Sharples, previous JPIT intern Source
