Within the broader context of the problems raised by the interaction between humans and machines in weaponry and targeting, this paper deals with the specific issue of the mens rea required to establish responsibility for the war crime of indiscriminate attacks, in the context of attacks performed with semi-autonomous weapons or with the support of artificial intelligence (AI) in targeting decision-making. The author presents the difficulties that are determined by the interaction between humans and machines, and highlights that an interpretation that would allow for risk-taking mental elements such as dolus eventualis and recklessness in the framework of the war crime of attacking civilians would be better able to capture the criminality of the conduct of the person who knowingly accepts the risk of killing civilians as part of an AI-powered attack where the result of hitting the civilian target is one of the possible outcomes. However, the article indicates that this construction can be employed only in specific circumstances, since in most scenarios even these lowered mens rea requirements would not be met. In most human-machine teaming scenarios, lower types of intent such as dolus eventualis would still be insufficient for the ascription of criminal responsibility for such indiscriminate attacks against civilians. This is because of the specific risks posed by the integration of autonomy in the targeting process and the resulting changes to the cognitive environment in which human agents operate, which significantly affect specific components of mens rea standards.

中文翻译：

---

国际刑事法院规约中攻击平民战争罪的犯罪意图下的自主武器与责任差距

在人机交互在武器装备和瞄准方面产生的问题的更广泛背景下，本文处理了确定不分青红皂白的攻击战争罪责任所需的犯罪意图的具体问题，在实施攻击的背景下半自主武器或在人工智能 (AI) 的支持下进行目标决策。作者提出了由人机交互决定的困难，并强调指出，在攻击平民的战争罪框架内允许冒险心理因素（例如 dolus eventualis 和鲁莽行为）的解释将能够更好地捕捉明知接受风险的人的行为的犯罪性杀死平民作为 AI 攻击的一部分，其中击中平民目标的结果是可能的结果之一。然而，该文章指出，这种结构只能在特定情况下使用，因为在大多数情况下，即使这些降低的犯罪率要求也不会得到满足。在大多数人机协作场景中，诸如 dolus eventualis 等较低类型的意图仍然不足以对此类针对平民的不分青红皂白的攻击承担刑事责任。