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
Thank you, Chair!
I am again intervening on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Institute for Law and Security (APILS) delegation and my own, Utrecht University.
We welcome the change in paragraph 2. The requirement for the effects of the attack to be “anticipated and limited” is more in line with existing IHL, especially Article 51(4)(c) of Additional Protocol I.
In paragraph 3, we note the deletion of the phrase “in all circumstances”.
Admittedly, the deleted language follows existing treaty law, such as Article 2(1) of CCW Protocol III, which provides that “It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.”
While we do not wish to undermine the protective intent of this type of language, we recall that, under IHL, civilians lose protection from attack for such time as they directly participate in hostilities. The inclusion of the phrase “in all circumstances” can therefore be read as departing from the established IHL framework.
We therefore support the deletion of the phrase “in all circumstances” because this allows the customary international law rule regarding direct participation in hostilities to operate undisturbed.
We do, however, suggest that the wording be altered slightly to reflect existing language in Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I: “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians or civilian objects, shall not be the object of attack by LAWS.”
Chair,
Paragraph 4 is a further elaboration of the language that was previously included in Box IV(9). We agree that Box III is a more appropriate location for this paragraph.
But to avoid interpretive challenges, we suggest aligning the language more closely with the wording used in recent arms control instruments, especially the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as other delegations have mentioned.
Thus, the first sentence of paragraph 4 should also cover development and production, and both direct and indirect transfer. Noting that the use of LAWS is already addressed elsewhere, this sentence could read as follows:
“States undertake not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, LAWS that cannot be used in compliance with IHL.”
As other delegations have mentioned, we are not entirely convinced of the need for the exception in the second sentence. We would be interested in hearing the views of delegations as to whether LAWS that cannot be used in compliance with IHL require such unique countermeasures that it is necessary to possess unlawful LAWS just to develop and test these countermeasures. If this is indeed the case, coherence in language with other arms control treaties is desirable.
As we highlighted in our Box II intervention yesterday, for internal coherence of the text, in paragraph 6, we recommend the following addition: context-appropriate human judgment and control is needed “across the lifecycle of LAWS ….” This would bring the text in line with existing language in Box IV paragraph 3 and ensure consistency throughout the text.
Chair,
With respect to paragraph 7, we are concerned that removing the clause “In order to uphold compliance with IHL” — which was previously at the beginning of the chapeau — loosens the connection between the measures listed and IHL compliance. We recommend retaining this reference to IHL in the chapeau.
We appreciate the reorganisation, consolidation and streamlining that has occurred in the subparagraphs.
We note that a number of delegations have expressed concern about the omission of the concepts of predictability, reliability, traceability and explainability. As we have previously pointed out, the substance of many of these concepts has already been incorporated into various parts of the rolling text. Therefore, we think notions such as predictability and reliability may deserve explicit mention here, whereas traceability and explainability are encapsulated in the current wording of Box V.
In subparagraph B, we welcome the explanation of the meaning of the term “scale of operations” through a number of examples. We agree with delegations that have supported the retention of this list of examples. However, “limiting or otherwise restricting” seems to be a linguistic redundancy. We struggle to think of a restriction that would not also be a limitation.
With regards to subparagraph C, we believe more specificity is required regarding the parameters mentioned. Additionally, the word “significantly” may be overly ambiguous, and the idea of a system modifying itself tends to anthropomorphise technology.
We suggest a rewording of this subparagraph that reflects cohesion with the rest of the text (including with reference to legal review requirements as outlined in Box IV), and suggest the following:
“[Ensure that] Mission parameters do not change without context-appropriate human judgment and control, and any further development of, or modifications to, LAWS that have an impact on their functions or anticipated effects must be reviewed for compliance with IHL.”
We are uncertain about subparagraph E, which seeks to restrict the use of LAWS only against “military objects”. In the previous text, subparagraph D(iv) sought to limit the use of LAWS to attacks against “objects that are military objectives by nature”.
The new language in paragraph E is therefore more restrictive and has the effect of prohibiting the use of anti-personnel LAWS. We are not sure if this was the objective of the drafters. If it was, we believe that the ICRC’s proposal to place such a prohibition into a dedicated paragraph would add clarity.
Finally, in paragraph 8, “foregoing” might be a better word than “formulated” when referring to the requirements and measures contained in paragraphs 1 through 7 and we suggest the wording: “The foregoing prohibitions, requirements and measures must be taken into account across the entire lifecycle of LAWS” for consistency with the rest of the text.
I thank you, Chair!
