First 2025 Session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
Thank you, chair!
We would also appreciate some more time to digest your questions, and seeing them on the screen would be helpful. Meanwhile, we can offer a few comments on other aspects of the text.
In paragraph 2, the replacement of the word “independent” with “regardless”, and the deletion of the word “military” are welcome improvements. This paragraph now better captures the idea that the body of IHL applies irrespective or without prejudice to the technology used. This proposition seems consistent with the US observation that some rules of IHL may relate to specific types of weapons or specific uses of weapons.
Paragraph 3 follows directly from paragraph 2. To further emphasise that point, it might be textually appropriate to merge paragraphs 2 and 3.
Chair,
The changes to paragraph 4 reflect a commendable attempt to simplify the text. However, the new text may have inadvertently created additional complications, which Australia and Switzerland have already alluded to.
As many delegations have pointed out, this paragraph reflects the Martens Clause, which can be found in many IHL instruments since 1899, including the CCW. There are different views as to the contemporary significance of the Clause. However, the fundamental purpose of the Martens Clause is to create a legal safety net for situations where States have been unable to agree upon specific rules. It may also be relevant in situations where the application of existing law is uncertain.
In the version of the Martens Clause found in the CCW preamble, this gap-filling function is made clear by the use of the words “in cases not covered by this Convention and its annexed protocols or by other international agreements”. Removing these words would alter the meaning of the CCW preamble. Furthermore, the proposed new clause “With respect to LAWS” is ambiguous in terms of its scope, and creates novel issues of interpretation.
Like Australia, we therefore suggest returning to the Chair’s original language. For clarity we also suggest making it clear that the “cases involving LAWS” refer to “cases involving the use of LAWS”. The paragraph would then read: “In cases involving the use of LAWS not covered by the CCW and its annexed Protocols or by other international agreements” and so on.
I thank you, Chair!
