A study was conducted on autonomous surveillance military installations that can be discussed at this point in time when autonomous weapons systems are being developed through the application of artificial intelligence technology advancements in the defense sector.
First, the authors evaluated whether fixed type surveillance robots correspond to autonomous military installations. While the question of whether weaponry corresponds to military installations can be an issue, autonomous surveillance military installations can be considered shared facilities for military purposes, and thus they correspond to “military installations” according to the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act. They can also be considered to correspond to “defense and military installations” according to the Act on National Defense and Military Installations Projects.
Direct legal basis regarding the operation of autonomous surveillance military installations could not be found because the military does not have laws on operations, unlike the police. While there is a legal basis regarding the use of weapons by sentry guards in the Framework Act on Military Status and Service, sentry guards are soldiers who are natural persons on guard under orders, and thus it is difficult for surveillance robots to correspond to this. However, the lack of regulations for autonomous surveillance military installations when regulations exist for the use of weapons by natural persons (sentry guard) carrying out the same task of keeping guard is problematic since it is difficult to find reasoning to treat them differently. A legal basis such as the regulation on the use of weapons by sentries is thus necessary for the operation of autonomous surveillance military installations.
When civilians are hurt during the operation of autonomous surveillance military installations, the issue of national compensation according to the State Compensation Act becomes a problem, but it is difficult to consider such autonomous surveillance military installations to correspond to public officials; the application of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act hence becomes limited. However, autonomous surveillance military installations correspond to structures of Article 5 of the State Compensation Act, and when the autonomous surveillance military installation malfunctions, it appears that responsibility is admissible according to this regulation. Harm and injuries from the operation of autonomous surveillance military installations can be prevented by designating a military installation protection zone around the installation. Autonomous surveillance military installations correspond to “military installations” of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act. Therefore, a military installation protection zone can be designated around the autonomous surveillance military installations. A military installation protection zone not only protects the military installation but also protects civilians from dangers that can arise during the operation of autonomous surveillance military installations by restricting civilian access. Moreover, designing the operation range of the autonomous surveillance military installation in correlation with the military installation protection zone range can also be considered.