2025 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
Second Session (Geneva, 1–5 September 2025)
Asia-Pacific Institute for Law and Security
Utrecht University
I thank you, Chair.
I make this joint intervention on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Institute for Law and Security (APILS), and on behalf of my own delegation, Utrecht University.
We note that the current version of the Box V text is much more consistent in the use of the terms responsibility and accountability than previous versions. We commend you, Chair, and your team for ensuring this alignment. The substance of this box has received wide support from various delegations, though we see some room for making the text more concise and streamlined.
Chair,
Our comments dovetail on some interventions yesterday proposing the replacement of the word accountability with responsibility. In our view, that change would unnecessarily narrow the mechanisms for ensuring compliance with international law that this box aims to achieve.
Responsibility refers specifically to forms of accountability based in law, such as through State responsibility or individual criminal responsibility. Accountability refers more broadly to processes in which an “accountability-holder” holds a “power-wielder” to a set of agreed standards. In short, responsibility is just one mechanism for accountability.
Accountability in the context of LAWS refers to the requirement for actors to explain or justify their actions or omissions, with potential political, legal, social or other consequences. It does not necessarily lead to or depend on legal proceedings to incentivise compliance. Not every violation of IHL entails individual responsibility under international law, so other avenues of accountability may, in our view, be appropriate in certain circumstances. Limiting accountability to mechanisms of responsibility under international law misses an opportunity to cast a wider net to shape State conduct in relation to LAWS throughout the rolling text.
Chair,
With this in mind, we recommend the following changes to the text. We offer these suggestions in the spirit of streamlining and clarifying the intended meaning of the text. We will, of course, submit these proposed changes in writing to you, Chair, and your team for further review.
We think that paragraph 1 is well-written and does not need further changes.
We suggest simplifying paragraph 2. First, as suggested by several delegations yesterday, it would be appropriate to delete the word “must”. Also, the second sentence of the paragraph creates confusion. It is not clear what it means for accountability and responsibility to be “considered” across the entire lifecycle of a LAWS. Rather, States parties to armed conflict remain responsible for all of their decisions across the lifecycle. Therefore, elements of the second sentence could be incorporated into the first. We propose the following revised language for paragraph 2:
States, parties to armed conflict, and individuals remain responsible and accountable, in accordance with applicable international law, for decisions with regard to LAWS throughout their lifecycle, because responsibility and accountability cannot be transferred to machines.
We see significant duplication in paragraphs 3 and 4. In effect, paragraph 4 expresses in more detail the ideas captured in paragraph 3. Also, paragraph 3 makes an unclear reference to “the means or methods of warfare involving the use of LAWS”. We recommend merging existing paragraphs 3 and 4 to remove duplicity and clarify intended meaning within the text. We propose the following wording:
States must ensure accountability and responsibility at all stages of the lifecycle of LAWS, including by operating such systems within a responsible chain of human command and control, to ensure compliance with applicable international law, including IHL.
We agree with proposals made yesterday that paragraph 5 could be clarified and streamlined.
But first, the chapeau contains the operative word “provide”, which does not fit well with the substance of subparagraph (a). States will often not be designing human-machine interfaces, so they would not be in a position to provide interfaces meeting certain requirements. Rather, they should ensure that systems developed by industry have such interfaces.
Furthermore, there is an overlap between subparagraphs (b) and (d). We suggest language from subparagraph (d) could be merged into subparagraph (b).
We also suggest referring to “regular training”, not just “training”, in subparagraph (c).
We propose the following text:
To promote human responsibility and accountability in the use of LAWS and to mitigate the risk of unintended engagements, States should:
a. Ensure that LAWS have readily understandable human-machine interfaces and controls;
b. Issue guidance and instructions (e.g., policies, doctrine, procedures, and rules of engagement), consistent with applicable IHL, for personnel regarding the proper use of LAWS;
c. Provide regular training of personnel to understand such guidance and the capabilities and limitations of the LAWS’ autonomous functions in the anticipated circumstances of its use.
We think that paragraph 5 is well-written and does not need further changes.
Finally, in paragraph 6, we suggest adding the words “or control” at the end of the sentence. This change in language reverts back to previous versions of the rolling text and reflects formulation in existing international law, including the Amended Protocol II of the CCW.
We thank you, Chair.
