Future Warfare: National Positions and Governance of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

The Future of Warfare: National Positions on the Governance of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems - Lieber Institute West Point 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 


 





 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The Future of Warfare: National Positions on the Governance of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

 by 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Benjamin Perrin , 
 
 
 
 
 
 Masoud Zamani 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | Feb 11, 2025 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), such as drones and autonomous missile systems, are no longer a theoretical concern. Indeed, they are finding their way onto the battlefield . Amid growing international concern, States have articulated a range of positions on how LAWS should be governed, ranging from relying on existing international law (traditionalists), to a legal ban on LAWS (prohibitionists), to a new treaty that would ban certain uses and regulate others to “clarify and strengthen existing law” (dualists). In this post, we analyze a flurry of recent international diplomatic efforts to address LAWS, focusing on these three main positions adopted by various States and identifying potential next steps.

 Definitional Challenges 

 Despite progress, the definition of LAWS under international law currently lacks consensus. Simply put , LAWS are weapons systems that, once activated, “select targets and apply force without human intervention.”

 Unfortunately, as this post discusses, the lack of a clear definition in States’ national positions has significantly influenced how different States approach this issue. Various conceptions of LAWS include fully autonomous weapon systems without the capability for human control, fully autonomous weapon systems with the capacity for human control, or other forms of autonomous weapons with varying degrees of human control. Adding to these uncertainties are differing understandings of key terms , such as “human control,” “intervention,” and the element of “lethality.” These ambiguities pose significant challenges in achieving the necessary consensus for progress in this area.

 The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) definition of LAWS provides a helpful starting point: “Any weapon system with autonomy in its critical functions. That is, a weapon system that can select (i.e., search for, detect, identify, track, select) and attack (i.e., use force against, neutralize, damage, or destroy) targets without human intervention.”

 Closely resembling this definition, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’ Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (CCW Group of Experts) rolling text definition of LAWS states:

 1. A lethal autonomous weapon system can be characterized as an integrated combination of one or more weapons and technological components that enable the

... (truncated, 16 KB total)