2026 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
Second Session (Geneva, 30 August–4 September 2026)
Asia-Pacific Institute for Law and Security
Utrecht University
Proposed text
35. LAWS must only be used in accordance with international law applicable in armed conflict, including the IHL principles and requirements of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack.
36. Ensuring compliance with applicable international law requires control and human judgement with regard to LAWS. Human beings exercise such control directly or indirectly, including through measures taken before and/or during the use of LAWS. Regardless of how control is exercised, human beings need to exercise judgement to assess what the applicable international law requires in the use of LAWS in specific operational circumstances and to give effect to this judgement, including by limiting the anticipated effects of LAWS.
37. Those who plan or decide upon an attack must be able to anticipate the effects of LAWS in the circumstances ruling at the time, which includes assessing the operational context and the characteristics and capabilities of the weapon system as a whole.
37bis. To this end, LAWS must be operated under a responsible chain of command and control, including ensuring assessment of legal obligations by a human, in particular with regard to the effects of the identification, selection, and engagement functions, as well as taking into account ethical considerations.
38. Control with respect to LAWS is exercised, inter alia, by ensuring: …
(a) [deleted] …
Statement as delivered
Thank you, Chair!
I am delivering this intervention on behalf of the delegation of Utrecht University and my own delegation, that of the Asia-Pacific Institute for Law and Security (APILS).
Paragraphs 36 through 38 together constitute the core of the document before us. They pertain to the need for human elements in the use of LAWS, which has been the focus of the work of the group and a critical issue for many delegations.
We would like to offer a few suggestions that are both substantive and structural. We do so in the hope that they contain at least food for further thought. Like previous speakers, we address these paragraphs together as they are interlinked, and especially as we propose to move language between these paragraphs.
Paragraph 35
But first a brief observation concerning paragraph 35. The intended effect of the phrasing “international law, in particular IHL” remains unclear, especially for readers of the text who have not participated in these discussions. IHL either applies or not, it does not apply in particular.
The US proposal to use the phrase “international law applicable in armed conflict” seems to be a more coherent option. This proposal was supported by several other delegations and reflects existing CCW language. This phrase would clearly cover IHL but also, for example, various arms control treaties. This language would also be without prejudice to any views that different States hold on the applicability of other areas on international law in armed conflict.
An express reference to IHL could be retained, if necessary, by inserting it before the phrase ”principles and requirement”.
The paragraph could then read as follows:
35. LAWS must only be used in accordance with international law applicable in armed conflict, including the IHL principles and requirements of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack.
Paragraph 36
We have heard some very constructive proposals regarding this paragraph from the floor. We will attempt to engage with these proposals rather than systematically commenting on the Chair’s proposal that is currently on the screen.
Sentence 1
In every proposed version, this paragraph begins with an important sentence underscoring the need for control and human judgment. But the notion of “upholding” applies better to abstract concepts like “values” or “traditions”, and less so to “compliance”, which is a very practical matter. Therefore, language such as “ensuring compliance” might better capture the idea that compliance is something to be actively pursued and not just endorsed as an idea. Likewise, the phrase “is needed” remains weak. Using the word “requires” would not only strengthen the sentence but also simplify its structure.
We have heard proposals that this first sentence should refer to “these rules” or “these rules of international law”. We would suggest avoiding a reference to “rules”. IHL contains important overarching principles, which also need to be considered in the use of LAWS. These notably include the principle of distinction or the principle precluding superfluous injury. In any event, given that the relevant international law has already been established in paragraph 35, it seems unnecessary to address this issue again here. So it might be sufficient to refer in paragraph 36 simply to “applicable international law”.
The first sentence could read:
Ensuring compliance with applicable international law requires control and human judgement with regard to LAWS.
Sentence 2
In various proposals, the second sentence of this paragraph refers to the exercise of control directly or indirectly through the taking of measures “before or during” the use of LAWS. But measures are likely to be taken both before and during the use of LAWS; these are not mutually exclusive. To make that clear, the conjunction “or” could be replaced with “and/or”.
The second sentence could then read:
Human beings exercise such control directly or indirectly, including through measures taken before and/or during the use of LAWS.
Sentence 3
The proposals we have heard add a third sentence reflecting the idea that human judgment entails a determination of the relevant international law and giving effect to this judgment.
The term “determine” seems to refer to an overly specific outcome or decision. A more comprehensive verb might be suitable here. For example, the word “assess” would capture a broader evaluative process involved in legal reasoning and the exercise of human judgment.
Furthermore, the evaluation of what international law requires should not occur generally and abstractly. It would need to take into account the operational context where a LAWS is used, for example to assess compliance with the rule of proportionality. Thus, after the phrase “in specific operational circumstances” could be added to make this clear.
The sentence could then read:
Regardless of how control is exercised, human beings need to exercise judgement to assess what the applicable international law requires in the use of LAWS in specific operational circumstances and to give effect to this judgement, including by limiting the anticipated effects of LAWS.
Paragraph 37
Following paragraph 36, which sets out the requirement of control and human judgment generally, paragraphs 37 and 38 unpack what this entails. We believe this could be made clearer by focusing paragraph 37 specifically on the human judgment dimension and paragraph 38 on the control dimension.
We propose redrafting paragraph 37 in two respects:
- First, being specific about whose judgment is critical with respect to the use of LAWS. The text could refer to “those who plan or decide upon an attack”. This is widely accepted IHL language that refers to those humans who have specific legal responsibilities with respect to attacks.
- Second, clarifying that the exercise of human judgment is only effective where the relevant humans are able to anticipate how the LAWS will operate.
With all this in mind, we propose rephrasing paragraph 37 as follows:
37. Those who plan or decide upon an attack must be able to anticipate the effects of LAWS in the circumstances ruling at the time, which includes assessing the operational context and the characteristics and capabilities of the weapon system as a whole.
Furthermore, we note that the current sub-paragraph 38(a) elaborates on a key aspect of human judgment, namely the assessment of applicable legal obligations in relation to the critical functions of a LAWS.
We therefore suggest moving sub-paragraph 38A to become subparagraph 37(a) or 37bis. That would also require minor changes to the beginning of the sub-paragraph, so that it would read:
37bis. To this end, LAWS must be operated under a responsible chain of command and control, including ensuring assessment of legal obligations by a human, in particular with regard to the effects of the identification, selection, and engagement functions, as well as taking into account ethical considerations.
Paragraph 38
Finally, to focus paragraph 38 to control, we propose simplifying the chapeau to read as follows:
38. Control with respect to LAWS is exercised, inter alia, by ensuring: …
We agree with your proposed changes to su-paragraphs (b) and (c). If our proposal to move subparagraph (a) is acceptable, the subparagraphs would of course need to be renumbered.
I thank you, Chair!
