Back
Future Warfare: National Positions and Governance of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
weblieber.westpoint.edu·lieber.westpoint.edu/future-warfare-national-positions-go...
Published by the Lieber Institute at West Point, this piece is relevant to AI safety researchers interested in international governance of autonomous weapons, a key near-term policy challenge intersecting AI capabilities and international security law.
Metadata
Importance: 55/100organizational reportanalysis
Summary
A Lieber Institute analysis examining how different nations are positioning themselves on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) and the international governance frameworks being proposed or contested. The piece explores the intersection of military AI development, international humanitarian law, and arms control negotiations at the UN level.
Key Points
- •Surveys national positions on LAWS, highlighting divergences between major powers like the US, Russia, China, and smaller states on autonomy in weapons systems.
- •Examines existing international humanitarian law frameworks and their applicability—or limitations—when applied to autonomous targeting decisions.
- •Analyzes ongoing UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) discussions and why consensus on binding regulation has proven elusive.
- •Considers the 'meaningful human control' debate as a central point of contention in governance negotiations.
- •Highlights the tension between military advantage incentives and humanitarian concerns driving divergent national stances.
Cited by 1 page
| Page | Type | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomous Weapons | Risk | 56.0 |
Cached Content Preview
HTTP 200Fetched Mar 20, 202619 KB
[Facebook](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/#facebook "Facebook") [Twitter](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/#twitter "Twitter") [Email](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/#email "Email") [LinkedIn](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/#linkedin "LinkedIn") [Print](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/#print "Print")
# The Future of Warfare: National Positions on the Governance of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
by [Benjamin Perrin](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/author/benjamin-perrin/ "Benjamin Perrin"), [Masoud Zamani](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/author/masoud-zamani/ "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](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/beyond-headlines-combat-deployment-military-ai-based-systems-idf/). 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](https://www.icrc.org/en/document/joint-call-un-and-icrc-establish-prohibitions-and-restrictions-autonomous-weapons-systems) 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](https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/note-correspondents/2023-10-05/note-correspondents-joint-call-the-united-nations-secretary-general-and-the-president-of-the-international-committee-of-the-red-cross-for-states-establish-new), 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](https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/autonomous_weapon_systems_under_international_humanitarian_law.pdf), 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](https://www.icrc.or
... (truncated, 19 KB total)Resource ID:
d988ee40439c105b | Stable ID: OTc3ZGRhZG