2025 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
Second Session (Geneva, 1–5 September 2025)
Asia-Pacific Institute for Law and Security
Thank you, Chair!
In our view, Box III helpfully reflects a number of existing rules of IHL, and then goes on to articulate practical measures that should be taken to ensure compliance with those rules.
In light of this structure, the intent of paragraph 4 remains unclear. In our view, paragraph 4 conflates an existing legal obligation, and the conditions or measures necessary to comply with that obligation.
IHL prohibits the use of weapons the effects of which cannot be limited as required by law. This prohibition is reflected in Article 51(4)(c) of Additional Protocol I. Compliance with this rule appears to presume the ability to anticipate and to control the effects of the weapon. But this language goes beyond the rule itself. The concept of anticipation is not foreign to IHL, as the ICRC has pointed out, but existing IHL does not use that concept as part of the rule we are discussing here.
We suggest resolving this issue by reflecting the substance of paragraph 4 elsewhere.
First of all, we note that paragraph 1 already reflects the underlying prohibition of indiscriminate weapons. A sentence could be added to the end of this paragraph: “This includes weapons the effects of which cannot be limited as required by IHL.”
Second, we note that paragraph 6 contains a series of measures for ensuring compliance with the law. So the language relating to anticipating and controlling effects would work better here. While moving that language, it might also be prudent to replace “sufficiently” with “reasonably”. This term is better understood in the IHL context.
So, we suggest adding a new subparagraph to paragraph 6 to say that States should: “ensure that they can reasonably anticipate and control the effects of LAWS in the circumstances of their use”.
With these changes, paragraph 4 would become redundant and could be deleted.
Chair,
We also suggest a minor amendment to paragraph 5. This paragraph refers to “the prohibitions set forth in the preceding paragraphs”. However, the preceding paragraphs do not only contain prohibitions. In particular, paragraph 2 contains a positive obligation to comply with certain IHL principles and requirements. Paragraph 5 could more accurately refer to “the prohibitions and requirements” set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
With your permission, Chair, we would like to return to paragraph 6 later in the discussions.
I thank you, Chair!
