The Road to Multilateral Regulation of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems

Human Rights Research Center

4 minutes ago

9 min read

November 4, 2026

An unmanned drone [Image credit: Kyle Loftus/Unsplash]

Introduction

In 1859, Swiss businessman Henry Dunant saw the reality of war when he traveled through the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino in Italy. Tens of thousands of injured soldiers and civilians were neglected. Food, water, and medical care were not adequately organized and medical personnel and others attempting to provide assistance lacked protection from the fighting. He later published A Memory of Solferino, a book that detailed the harrowing aftermath of the Battle of Solferino and gained wide support throughout Europe. He proposed training volunteers to support medical personnel and establishing an international treaty to protect them, hospitals, and ensure the care of wounded soldiers as non-combatants during armed conflict (Swiss Federal Archives, 2025). Dunant and four other Swiss citizens formed the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863, which led to the signing of the First Geneva Convention in August 1864 by 12 participating states at the conference. To this day, the convention protects medical personnel and requires aid for wounded soldiers, regardless of nationality, during armed conflict (Palmieri, 2026).

Since then, the ICRC has expanded its work to address more humanitarian concerns arising from armed conflict, one of which is regulating or prohibiting the use of certain weapons, especially if such weapons blindly cause massive harm (i.e., cluster munitions) or induce prolonged and unnecessary suffering (i.e., incendiary weapons) to civilians and non-combatants such as wounded soldiers (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2026). A new concern has now surfaced: the application of certain artificial intelligence mechanisms in military systems. Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) are machines capable of making real-time decisions without human input (Lee, 2025). Several nation-states are calling for a legally binding instrument to define LAWS and set appropriate regulations to keep individuals and states accountable.

Background on LAWS

The ICRC addressed the challenges posed by autonomous weapon systems in its 2011 report, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. Submitted to the 31st International Conference on the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the report describes an autonomous weapon system as one capable of dynamically learning and adapting “its functioning in response to changing circumstances in the environment in which it is deployed” (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2011). Even before 2011, academics and other organizations noted the ethical dilemmas of LAWS. Many of their concerns centered on who should take accountability when autonomous machines eventually destroy human lives and civilian structures without sufficient human intervention. Professor Noel Sharkey, a roboticist, warned that, if LAWS remained unregulated, the decision on human life would be deferred “to machines that are not bright enough to be called stupid” (Sharkey, 2007). In the same report, the ICRC suggests that a “true autonomous system” would include the capability to implement international humanitarian law (IHL) in its decision-making. The report states this as a “monumental task.” Demonstrating that such compliance can be achieved reliably remains a significant technical and legal challenge.

Setting the Framework for a Legally Binding Instrument on LAWS

The timeline above does not show the full scope of meetings relevant to LAWS regulation. Instead, the timeline highlights key meetings and decisions since 2011 that advanced the discussions on LAWS regulations in multilateral forums. Following a three-year mandate (2024-2026) to define LAWS, the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on LAWS concluded its final session under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), a United Nations arms control framework. In September 2026, the group decided on a document to serve as a baseline text for consideration at the Seventh Review Conference in November 2026, where states are expected to continue discussing the regulations of LAWS. At the Sixth Review Conference in December 2021, states did not reach consensus on proposals on incendiary weapons and LAWS (Docherty, 2021). The Seventh Review Conference of the Convention represents a key opportunity within the CCW framework in Geneva to pursue a legally binding treaty through consensus. Under a consensus-based process, a single state’s objection can prevent agreement on a proposed framework. If states fail to reach consensus, the discussion would continue through the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. The UNGA Resolution 79/62 provided a parallel forum to continue discussions on LAWS outside of the CCW process, and potentially allowing states to move forward to a different decision-making through majority voting without unilateral blockages from states like Russia (United Nations General Assembly, 2025).

What the “Rolling Text” Means for the Seventh Review Conference

The countries shown above are based on the final report of the 2024-2026 GGE sessions on LAWS. The report includes 118 countries that participated in the GGE sessions; it does not list all members of the High Contracting Parties. Participation in a United Nations meeting on disarmament does not necessarily indicate support for particular disarmament proposals or peace initiatives. However participation does demonstrate states’ willingness to engage in discussions about the legality of autonomous weapons, whether by applying the existing framework of IHL, developing a new framework, or taking another approach to their regulation under international law. Approximately 70% support a new legally binding instrument, 17% remain undecided, and about 9% oppose or express skepticism about creating a new protocol on LAWS. Section IV explains why the rolling text was adopted as a baseline. Paragraph 48(a) states that the proposed regulations and measures in the baseline text could be used as part of an instrument, although the instrument is undetermined: “without prejudging its [whether this would be binding or non-binding] nature” (Group of Governmental Experts [GGE], 2026).

The first map shows many countries in the Global North as undeclared or opposed to a legally binding instrument. However, this does not indicate how many favor a non-binding framework. As the second map shows, many countries in the Global North support a non-binding framework. Their support for a non-binding framework does not necessarily mean that they oppose the substantive principles in the rolling text concerning the application of IHL to LAWS. Even if states adopt a legally binding instrument, its entry of force and implementation will depend on the instrument's terms and the applicable legal procedures. Where ratification and domestic implementation are required, these processes may take considerable time (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, n.d.). Moreover, some countries, including India and Russia, have argued that existing IHL is adequate, while identifying ambiguity in how it applies to LAWS as a concern (Adamson, 2026; Bharadwaj & Bhatt, 2024). Addenda to IHL matter because, like technology, the law must adapt to a changing society. Advancements in warfare, technology, or science, if left unregulated, could be used to strong-arm other nations, particularly where competition over resources and strategic advantages shape international relations.

The Reality of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems

In Section III, paragraph 25, the rolling text defines LAWS as weapons that “can identify, select, and engage a target with force, without intervention by a human being operating the system.” Subclause (a) further states that the weapon may still be deemed autonomous even if a human has programmed it with a target. However, a weapon would not fall within this definition if humans actively planned, decided upon, or carried out against a specific target at a specific time using that weapon (Group of Governmental Experts [GGE], 2026). IHL has no regulations that monitor that level of specificity for lethal autonomous weapon systems today. Meanwhile, several nation-states are developing and selling these systems and related technologies. On July 6, 2026, in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, a Russian AI-guided drone reportedly made its final targeting decision without human intervention before striking a gas station, resulting in three civilian deaths. Ukrainian investigators confirmed that the drone was AI-guided and discovered an off-the-shelf AI computer chip, the Jetson Orin, which is often used for computer-vision projects at universities. Investigators reportedly found no hardware, such as a radio antenna or data links, that would indicate human intervention (Barrientos, 2026). Meanwhile, the Israeli Defense Forces actively use “The Gospel,” or Habsora, an artificial intelligence that helps rapidly generate potential military bombing targets (Schmitt, 2024). The actions of Russia and Israel display an unwillingness to want a binding or non-binding regulation on LAWS.

The effort to regulate LAWS has been in motion for years. Disagreements amongst states on the scope of LAWS regulation ensues due to conflicting interests on military investments and development. As the Seventh Review Conference approaches, states face an important opportunity to move beyond debate and make tangible progress toward clearer, more effective regulation of LAWS.

Glossary

Autonomous: able to carry out tasks and adapt to new information without direct human guidance or intervention.
Ambiguity: the quality or state of allowing more than one interpretation : the quality or state of being ambiguous.
Binding Treaty: A written international agreement concluded between states or international organizations and governed by international law, creating legal rights and obligations for the parties that are bound by it.
Compliance: disposition to yield to others.
Consensus: general agreement (as of opinion or fact) among a group of people or things.
Consolidate: to join together into one whole.
Civil society: Civil society refers to the network of groups, communities, and ties that exist between individuals and the modern state.
Disarmament: the laying aside or depriving of arms.
Dynamically: marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change.
Ethical: conforming to accepted standards of conduct.
Explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent.
First Geneva Convention: Adopted on August 22, 1864 in Geneva, Switzerland to establish international rules protecting wounded and sick soldiers on the battlefield.
Geneva Convention: A series of four international treaties adopted in 1949 that establish humanitarian laws protecting non-combatants in armed-conflict.
Global North: The Global North is a term to analyze the relative wealth and power of a country. Typically includes countries like the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.
Incendiary: of, relating to, or being a weapon (such as a bomb) designed to start fires.
Induce: to cause the formation of, or produce.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The body of international law governing armed conflict. It protects civilians and civilian objects, as well as combatants who are no longer participating in hostilities because they are wounded, sick, shipwrecked, or detained.
International Committee of the Red Cross: An organization established in 1863 that works to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and to promote respect for IHL.
Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS): Weapons that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further human intervention, depending on their design and configuration.
Mandate: an authorization to act given to a representative.
Mechanisms: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.
Moratorium: a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation or the payment of a debt.
Multilateral: involving or participated in by more than two nations or parties.
Non-combatants: one that does not engage in combat.
Pivotal: vitally important
Proportionality: the quality, state, or fact of being proportional
Proportionality in Attack: Under Rule 14 of customary IHL, an attack is prohibited if the expected incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Ratification: the act or process of ratifying something (such as a treaty or amendment) : formal confirmation or sanction
Rolling Text: A working draft that is revised as negotiations progress and that reflects evolving proposals, language, or areas of agreement.
Skeptics: an adherent or advocate of skepticism.
Specificity: the quality or condition of being specific.
Substantive: having substance : involving matters of major or practical importance to all concerned.
Sufficient: enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.
Stakeholder: a person entrusted with the stakes of bettors.
St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868: The first formal internationally recognized agreement that bans a specific weapon, any projectile weighing under 400 grams that is explosive or loaded with inflammable substances.
Strong-arm: having or using undue force.
Unilateral: done or undertaken by one person or party.

References

Adamson, L. (2026, April 13). No new rules needed: Russia’s minimalist vision of human oversight for LAWS. Lieber Institute West Point. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/no-new-rules-needed-russias-minimalist-vision-human-oversight-for-laws/
Automated Decision Research. (2026). Automated Decision Research. Automated Decision Research. https://automatedresearch.org/state-positions/
Barrientos, A. (2026, August 24). A drone guided entirely by A.I. killed three ukrainians. Yahoo News. https://www.gadgetreview.com/a-drone-guided-entirely-by-a-i-killed-three-ukrainians
Bharadwaj, T., & Bhatt, C. (2024, February 26). India’s normative stance on lethal autonomous weapons systems. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/02/indias-normative-stance-on-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems
Docherty, B. (2021, December 21). Countering consensus through humanitarian disarmament: Incendiary weapons and killer robots. Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/21/countering-consensus-through-humanitarian-disarmament-incendiary-weapons-and-killer
Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. (2026). Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (p. CCW/GGE.1/2026/CRP.1/Rev.1). United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2011). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts. In International Committee of the Red Cross (p. 31IC/11/5.1.2). International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/red-cross-crescent-movement/31st-international-conference/31-int-conference-ihl-challenges-report-11-5-1-2-en.pdf
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2026, September 25). Rule 70. Weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Database. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule70
Jevglevskaja, N. (2015). St Petersburg, 1868. Online Atlas on the History of Humanitarianism and Human Rights. https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/jevglevskaja-st_petersburg
Lee, E. (2025, February 3). What are Autonomous Weapon Systems? The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. https://www.belfercenter.org/what-are-autonomous-weapon-systems
Palmieri, D. (2026, September 25). The Geneva Conventions: 160 years of history. Genève Internationale. https://www.geneve-int.ch/geneva-conventions-160-years-history
Schmitt, M. N. (2024, June 28). Israel – Hamas 2024 symposium - the gospel, lavender, and the law of armed conflict - Lieber Institute West Point. Lieber Institute West Point. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/gospel-lavender-law-armed-conflict/
Sharkey, N. (2007, August 17). Noel Sharkey: Robot wars are a reality. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/18/comment.military
Swiss Federal Archives. (2025). Geneva Conventions. Swiss Federal Archives. https://www.bar.admin.ch/en/geneva-conventions
United Nations General Assembly. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns. United Nations General Assembly. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-47_en.pdf
United Nations General Assembly. (2025). Lethal autonomous weapons systems. In United Nations (p. A/RES/80/57). United Nations. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/80/57
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (n.d.). Ratification campaign. Ohchr. Retrieved September 25, 2026, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights-75/ratification-campaign

HRRC accepts NO funding from governments for our research or campaigns. At every step of the way, our impact is made possible because of people like YOU. Make your contribution now!