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!
This box contains an important set of practical measures to be taken across the lifecycle of LAWS to improve compliance with international law. It is good to see general support for these kinds of measures and the numerous suggestions for improvement.
The chapeau of this box concludes with the word “should”, indicating that the paragraphs that follow reflect desirable measures or good practices. But this creates some issues in relation to paragraphs 1 and 9.
As several delegations have underlined, the obligation to undertake legal reviews of new weapons, reflected in the first sentence of paragraph 1, constitutes a legal obligation at least for those states that are party to Additional Protocol I.
Stronger language from the group’s earlier consensus documents would be preferable to reflect this. For example, the language using the word “must” from paragraph 23 of the 2023 Report seems more appropriate. The second sentence of this paragraph can remain the same. To accommodate the stronger language, paragraph 1 could be brought to the very beginning of the box—before the current chapeau. We also find the proposal to move the first sentence of paragraph 1 to Box III interesting. But if that is done, the second sentence would then need to be rephrased here to bring it in line with the chapeau.
Paragraph 9 creates a different issue in light of the chapeau. We do not think that general IHL can be interpreted as prohibiting the manufacture, acquisition, stockpiling, or transfer. Hence, this paragraph appears to propose a new requirement by using the words “States undertake”. We have no objection to this proposal as such. But the words “States undertake” clashes with the words “States should” in chapeau.
Conversely, in paragraph 8, the words “State shall” seem to be redundant as they duplicate the same words in the chapeau.
Chair,
Turning now briefly to the substance of the list of measures paragraphs 2 through 8.
We support the intent of paragraph 3 to ensure that the capabilities, effects and limitations of LAWS are understood. But the current language seems to create impossible requirements for states, especially during legal review. States cannot be expected to anticipate all of the effects of LAWS in all conceivable circumstances of use. To address this problem, the words “in different circumstances” paragraph 3 could be replaced with the words “in other reasonably foreseeable circumstances of use”.
In paragraph 4, changing “modification” to “significant modification” appears to be a sensible change. The idea of conducting periodical reviews is interesting, but raises a host of questions about the appropriate timing of such reviews. Conducting reviews after significant modifications appears to be clearer and more in line with the existing law.
Finally, we would also support the proposed changes to create a stronger connection between the legal review obligation in paragraph 1 and the flow-on requirements in paragraph 4, by locating these paragraphs together.
Thank you, Chair!
