2026 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
First Session (Geneva, 2–6 March 2026)
Asia-Pacific Institute for Law and Security
Utrecht University
Chair,
I am again delivering this intervention on behalf of the delegation of the Asia-Pacific Institute for Law and Security (APILS) and my own delegation, Utrecht University.
Though we don’t see the need to weigh in on the moving of the text up to Box I, as other delegations have mentioned, we would like to briefly address the terminology used in Box II (para 4), specifically the reference to the “development and use” language. Not wanting to complicate matters unnecessarily by introducing new ideas at this point as the last two distinguished representatives from Switzerland and Portugal has just mentioned and offered in the spirit of offering an element to consider, we propose that in Box II, para 4 “development and use” be changed to “lifecycle.” The text would then read: “IHL applies fully to the lifecycle of LAWS.” We have a similar suggestion related to text in Box III (para 6) but we will return to that later in the week.
For one, our proposed change brings cohesion across other areas of the text. The term “lifecycle” is already used in Boxes IV and V.
More substantively, we respectfully suggest that a reference to the “lifecycle” would more explicitly encompass stages of planning and designing as well as developing and using, echoing a lifecycle approach of the system and tracking largely across the language in Article 36 of AP 1 addressed to High Contracting Parties in the “study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare.”
Clarifying Box II (4), as well as other references throughout the text to reflect all phases of the lifecycle, to include “planning and designing” in addition to “development and use” would therefore strengthen the coherence of the text. This would ensure consistency with IHL. It would additionally reinforce the principle that accountability, as addressed in Box V of the rolling text, cannot be deferred to the point of battlefield deployment and above all, makes the text internally consistent.
Clarifying Box II (4), as well as other references throughout the text to reflect all phases of the lifecycle, to include “planning and designing” in addition to “development and use” would therefore strengthen the text and ensure consistency with IHL. It would additionally reinforce the principles that responsibility and accountability, as addressed in Box V of the rolling text, cannot be deferred to the point of battlefield deployment and above all, makes the text internally consistent. I will also offer these comments and supporting analysis to the Chair and his team after this intervention.
I thank you, Chair!
