3rd Meeting, Preparatory Committee of the 7th Review Conference CCW

This morning's session is about to resume. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, now we will be tackling item number eight on our agenda, which are the preparations for the main committee. And to that end, I would like to invite the chair of the President of Main Committee Two, Ambassador Elmer Salmoza Alceto, Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva. I would like to invite him to the head table so he could guide us through this morning's work. Thank you.

Good morning, dear colleagues, and thank you very much for being here for our first meeting of Main Committee II. I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Gdeon Tumi for the discussions we had yesterday. Thank you, Ambassador Tony. It was a very productive session. And I hope, I believe, I in fact, I am sure that our discussions today on this topic will be quite important as well.

It is an honor for me to address this PrepCom in relation to the preparations of -- for the work of the Main Committee, too. of the seventh review conference of our treaty. At the outset, I wish to express my sincere appreciations for the confidence placed in me by the high contracting parties by endorsing my nomination to serve as chairperson of the Main Committee II. I look forward to working closely with all delegations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner. As this is our first formal discussion concerning the work of Main Committee II, I wish to assure delegations of my commitment to conducting our work constructively, efficiently and impartially, consistent with the practices of the Convention. In the period leading up to the Review Conference, I intend to engage closely with delegations, regional groupings and other stakeholders. I welcome the views and suggestions regarding the organization of work and the issues that may require particular attention. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, The review conference represents an important opportunity for high contracting parties to consider developments in weapons technology and to ensure that the Convention remains responsive to current and future challenges. In this context, Main Committee II serves as the principal forum of examining issues related to emerging weapon systems, assessing their implications for the objectives and purposes of the Convention and identifying priorities for future work under the Convention. In doing so, it contributes to the continued clarification and progressive development of the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. In accordance with established practice, the tasks of the Main Committee II are the consideration of proposals for additional protocols of the Convention and consideration of emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems. This has been reflected in the provisional agenda and the provisional programme of work of the Main Committee II. that the Preparatory Committee has already endorsed. To start our discussions today, I'd like to invite Ambassador Robert van den Bos, Chairperson of the Group of Governmental Experts on Laws, to present the work undertaken by the group during the 2024, 2025 and 2026 sessions, three years. and the final report adopted by consensus last week, which, of course, I'd like to congratulate him for that. Delegations will then be invited to share their views on the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. Before giving him the floor, I'd like to express my appreciation to Ambassador Enden Bosch for his leadership of the Group over the past three years. Under his chairmanship, the Group successfully reached consensus on a set of elements of an instrument without prejudging its nature, as well as on other possible measures to address loss. These achievements provide an important basis for our discussions as we prepare for the Seventh Review Conference. Ambassador Bos Indenbosch, I welcome you and I give you the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador, Mr. Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates. I am pleased to present to the Preparatory Committee the final report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems covering its work in 2024, 2025 and 2026. The Group adopted this report by consensus on Friday 4 September, concluding an intensive three-year period of work under the mandate given to us by the 2023 meeting of the High Contracting Parties. That mandate called upon the Group, in the context of the objectives and purpose of the Convention, to further consider and formulate by consensus a set of elements of an instrument without prejudging its nature and other possible measures to address emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems. To achieve this mandate, we were asked to build upon the Group's previous recommendations and conclusions, to take account of existing protocols within the Convention, proposals by the High Contracting Parties and other options concerning the normative and operational framework, and to bring together legal, military and technological expertise. Over the past three years, the Group devoted 30 days of formal meetings to this task. 10 days each in 2024, 2025, and 2026, divided into two sessions every year. This formal work was complemented by numerous informal consultations, which I convened throughout this three-year period. The process was demanding and often challenging. as delegations approached the issue from various perspectives and with different understandings of how the international community could and should respond to emerging technologies in the area of laws. Yet throughout our work, a shared commitment to engage with one another on substance remained, to build shared understandings and to seek areas of convergence where consensus may be achieved. To guide, structure, and advance the substantive exchanges, the Group worked on the basis of a rolling text, suggested by me as Chair during its second session in 2024. This rolling text contained a draft set of elements of an instrument and other possible measures, as per the mandate of the GGE. These were formed as a synthesis of proposals and positions brought forward by States during the first session. The intersessional period and previous work of the GDE. The text guided the group's work over two and a half years and became an essential tool through which delegations were able to engage in detailed technical exchanges that served to move from political positioning to legal, military and technological consideration. From its first iteration in 2024 to its finalization last week, the text, and with it our understanding, has come a long way. Mr. Chair, the set of elements and other possible measures initially contained in this rolling text became the principal substantive outcome of the work of the Group, and the elements are contained in the conclusions of the report in their final iteration. This is a monumental result. The agreed elements address a broad range of issues that have occupied the Group since its inception. This includes a characterization of lethal autonomous weapons systems within the framework of the CCW. That not only ensures a common understanding of what we are addressing, but also seeks to withstand the test of time in order to render it useful for years to come. an affirmation of the applicability of international humanitarian law relating to laws and related prohibitions, regulations, and specifications, a requirement of controlling human judgment to ensure compliance with international law applicable in armed conflict, including a specification of how such control and human judgment is exercised and relevant measures in this regard. A broad range of risk mitigation measures relevant at various stages of the life cycle of a law that are underpinned by a requirement that the use and anticipated effects of laws in different circumstances can be understood. And last and finally, as well as measures related to responsibility and accountability. Taken together, the set of elements and other possible measures represent the product of sustained negotiation and compromise among High Contracting Parties. Their significance lies not only in each individual paragraph, but also in the fact that the Group was able to formulate them by consensus under the mandate entrusted to it. Mr. Chair, allow me to say a few words about the process that brought us here. From the beginning, I sought to conduct the work of the Group in a transparent and inclusive manner, progressively focusing our discussions on areas that might command consensus, but never shying away from those that were less likely to do so. The considerable number of working papers and textual suggestions submitted by High Contracting Parties, observers, as well as by me as the Chair, provided important contribution to that effort. The final result does not reflect the preferred outcome of any single delegation. It's a collective product of the group. Consensus necessarily requires accommodation. Delegations made considerable efforts to understand positions other than their own and to identify formulations capable of bringing different approaches together. I'm grateful for the flexibility patience and seriousness with which delegations engaged in that process. I know that, ultimately, each delegation felt like it had to make challenging concessions. But I would like to reiterate that this is not a loss, nor does it signal that the work on the issue is complete. It's part of a process, one that will continue beyond the adoption of the report. The report that the Group adopted is an important milestone that enables us to carry the work on laws under the CCW forward from a stronger position than we have ever been in. And I also want to stress that the value of our work goes well beyond the report itself. It lies in the many discussions we have had over the past three years, in the understanding we have built, and in the progress we have made together. That, too, is something we should carry forward. I would also like to recognize the breadth of participation in the work of the Group, which has been instrumental to its success. High Contracting Parties from all regions participated, along with signatory and observer States, while the contributions of the United Nations, the ICRC, and other international organizations, civil society, and academia further enriched our discussions and brought a diversity of legal, military, humanitarian and technological perspective and important expertise to our work. I am grateful to all those who shared their knowledge and perspectives and contributed to making this process possible and meaningful. Mr Chair, the report now comes before the High Contracting Parties in preparation for the Seventh Review Conference. The Group makes two recommendations. First, it recommends that the High Contracting Parties at the Seventh Review Conference consider and endorse the set of elements of an instrument without prejudging its nature and other possible measures contained in the conclusions of the report, without prejudice to the result of future discussions. Second, it recommends that the Seventh Review Conference decide by consensus on the possible modalities of the future work of the Group. These recommendations place the next step in the hands of the High Contracting Parties at the Review Conference. The Group has fulfilled the mandate entrusted to it by formulating by consensus a substantive set of elements and other possible measures. The task before the Preparatory Committee, and ultimately before the Seventh Review Conference through its Main Committee II, is to consider this outcome and determine how the work should be taken forward. In doing so, I count on delegations preserving the spirit of constructive engagement that made the consensus reflected in this report possible. The differences among high contracting parties have not disappeared, but the report demonstrates that those differences do not prevent us from identifying substantive common ground. The CCW has long provided the framework within which states with different security perspectives, technological capabilities and legal approaches have been able to engage directly with one another on these complex issues. The consensus outcome of the group is itself evidence of the continuing value of that framework. As Chair, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all delegations for the confidence they placed in me and for their engagement throughout these three years. I also wish to thank my own team, the Implementation Support Unit and the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, and the Friends of the Chair for their invaluable support to the Chair and to the Group throughout this process. It has been an honour and privilege to chair this Group. I commend the Group's final report to the Preparatory Committee and, through it, to the Seventh Review Conference. Mr Chair of Main Committee II. All the best for this important work in chairing Main Committee II, and I assure you of all of my full support as outgoing Chair of the GGE and in my national capacity. I thank you for giving me the floor.

I thank you very much, Ambassador In den Bosch, for this comprehensive report. The Group's successful outcome marks an important milestone of the GGE and lays a solid foundation for future work on laws in the framework of the Convention. I'd like to open now the floor to any delegation that wishes to ask any questions to Ambassador Inden Bosch or to share their views on the conclusions and recommendations contained in the final report that has just been presented, or regarding even the future of the work of LOAWE within the Convention. I open now the floor, and I give the floor to any delegation who wishes to take it. I think Ambassador Endemosh, that your report is very, very comprehensive and very, very, very complete. I see now the Russian Federation. You have the floor, sir.

Distinguished Chair of Main Committee Two, the Russian Federation is firmly convinced that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is the best possible platform for the consideration of the issue of lethal autonomous weapons systems. And to discuss this issue in other international forum will be counterproductive. We take note of the efforts of states to bring positions closer on the question of lethal autonomous weapons systems within the framework of the relevant group of governmental experts of States Parties to the CCW. And we find that an important role in bringing positions closer was related to the positive efforts made by States, the efforts taken by the chair of the GGE, the Bureau, The Russian Federation welcomes the fact that the GGE was able to agree on the basis of consensus of a substantive report. And we do hope that the upcoming seventh review conference will endorse the final document of the GGE. We reaffirm the need for further substantive work on the question of laws within the CCW. And we do hope that States Parties will be able to agree on a new mandate of the profile GGE that should remain a forum for discussions. As far as we are concerned, we will take all the necessary efforts to work constructively on this issue. On the possible regulation of laws, Our position remains unchanged. We believe that international law, including international humanitarian law, is fully applicable to weapon systems with the use of artificial intelligence technologies. we do not see any convincing arguments for the need to introduce any preventive additional restrictions or prohibitions related to these systems. And moreover, already at this stage, we see the big advantages related to laws that can significantly reduce the negative impact of their use in the context of international humanitarian law. An important element that ensures compliance with international humanitarian law is human control over the functioning of these weapon systems. And specific forms and methods of such control should be left up to states to decide. As we prepare to the upcoming seventh review conference, all of us, all of the states parties, should take serious efforts in order to be able to come up with a new mandate that will be acceptable to all, a new mandate of a group of governmental experts. And the Russian Federation is ready to actively participate in this process and make the necessary constructive contribution and to provide you, Chairman of the Main Committee, all types of assistance to achieve results that we all wish to achieve for presentation to the Seventh Review Conference and the endorsement of this new mandate during the meeting of the Seventh Review Conference. Thank you.

I thank you, sir. Thank you, Russia. I do see a hand. The United Kingdom has the floor.

At the outset, let me congratulate you on your appointment as chair of the main committee. You can count on the full support of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom warmly welcomes the adoption by consensus of the substantive report on the GGE laws in fulfilment of its mandate. We commend the work of the group and the exceptional leadership of Ambassador In den Bosch throughout the process. This is a significant milestone and a demonstration of the continuing relevance and value of the CCW. For the United Kingdom, preserving the momentum generated by the outcome and the broad consensus on which it is based should be an important objective as we look forward to the seventh review conference. The CCW remains uniquely suited to advancing work on lethal autonomous weapons systems, grounding these discussions in international humanitarian law. As this work progresses, it will be important that any future process continues to draw on the necessary legal, military and technical expertise. We look forward to agreeing at the review conference a new mandate that builds on the results of the GTE. Our focus should remain on identifying a way forward that can command broad support, preserve the consensus achieved last week and enable meaningful progress within the CCW framework. The United Kingdom looks forward to engaging constructively with all delegations in the lead-up to the review conference, as we work together to translate this achievement into sustained progress. As my delegation did not make a statement during the general exchange of views yesterday, I underline the importance that the UK attaches to the CCW as a key instrument of international humanitarian law. It is unique in its scope, structure and capacity to respond to developments in weapons and methods of warfare. The seventh review conference will provide an important opportunity to assess the operation and status of the convention, strengthen implementation of its provisions and agree the work necessary to ensure that it remains relevant and responsive to contemporary challenges.

I thank the United Kingdom. Thank you, distinguished delegate. I now give the floor to Austria. Austria, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We congratulate you on your appointment as Chair of Main Committee II. The topic of autonomous weapons systems deserves our fullest attention in the months ahead, as well as during the review conference, with a view to achieving concrete results. Rapid technological advancements in this field and their accelerated adaptation leave us no more time to dwell. Humans must always remain in control over autonomous weapons systems. We also need legal clarity and avoid a myriad of national approaches and interpretations which risk undermining the application of international law. Let me take this opportunity to express our appreciation for Ambassador Nden Bosch, Chair of the Group of Governmental Experts on Laws, his team and the ISU for the dedication and hard work over the past three years of the GGE's mandate. Together with the commitment and flexibility of all delegations, Under the able leadership of the Chair, the Group agreed on a consensus report, which will now be presented to the Review Conference for its consideration and endorsement. Mr Chair, while the level of ambition of the agreed outcome of the GGE remained quite below our expectations, with important paragraphs deleted and many partly fundamental changes to the text elaborated over three years, brought to the table by a few delegations at last minute, The common understanding achieved through hours and days of discussions on core elements in relation to laws are no minor feat. After 10 years of intense discussions, we have a solid basis of elements elaborated, and it is now imperative to take the next step. To be clear, another deliberative mandate will not solve any outstanding issues that the GGE, during its last week of mandate, discussed. Only by working towards a concrete outcome with a clear aim will we be able to fulfill the original purpose of our convention and the expectations of the global community. It is therefore vital for our efforts' credibility that the set of elements agreed by consensus now serves as a basis for a negotiation mandate. We still have the unique opportunity to take action and prevent unintended consequences by adopting a negotiation mandate at the review conference in November and finalize work on a protocol to draw the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. For Austria, the way ahead is a clear responsibility of all High Contracting Parties. We heed the renewed call of the UN Secretary General and the ICRC President to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible to address the urgency that the regulation of autonomous weapons systems requires due to the fundamental impact on peace and security. We stand ready to work with all high contracting parties as well as the ICRC, civil society, and other stakeholders in the way ahead. I thank you.

I thank you very much, uh, the distinguished delegate of Austria. And now I give the floor to China. China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. China appreciates the assumption of the chairmanship

of the Main Committee II by Ambassador Peru, ready to work to cooperate with your work.

China welcomes the consensus adoption of the GGE report. on laws and commend the Chair from the Netherlands and the team for tremendous effort. China supports continuous development of rules for emerging technologies within the Convention. We expect, building on the report of this year's GGE report on laws, the seventh review conference will reach through consensus-based negotiations a mutually acceptable mandate for next step work. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, China, and thank you for the commending words. I now give the floor to South Africa. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We congratulate you as the Chair of Main Committee II and assure you of my delegation's full support. South Africa wishes to commend Ambassador Inden Bosch and his team for the outstanding leadership in steering the work of the GGE on LOS. Under his stewardship, the Group successfully navigated a challenging international environment and achieved consensus on a substantial report, thereby fulfilling the mandate entrusted to it by the High Contracting Parties. South Africa believes that discussions on the future mandate concerning laws should commence sooner than later. The Seventh Review Conference presents a critical opportunity not only to take stock of the substantial work undertaken under the Convention, but also to provide strategic direction for the next phase of our collective efforts, particularly on issues where years of substantive engagement have brought us significantly closer to a common understanding. South Africa is of the view that the review conference should provide a clear negotiating mandate on emerging technologies in the area of laws, after more than a decade of deliberations and in light of the considerable progress achieved through the text-based work of the GGE. It would be difficult to justify returning, but should build upon, rather than dilute, the progress that has already been made. My delegation would also caution against transferring these discussions to processes outside the framework of the Convention. The enduring strength of multilateralism lies in its ability to bring all states together, including those with diverse security interests, technological capabilities, and legal perspectives, and to foster outcomes through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise. Fragmenting discussions across multiple forums risks exacerbating divisions at a time when greater coherence and inclusivity are required. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons remains the most appropriate and credible framework within which to advance this work. Mr. Chair, South Africa remains mindful of the broader international security environment in which these discussions are taking place. Rising military expenditure, evolving security doctrines, rapid technological developments, and increasing geopolitical tensions underscore the importance of preserving and strengthening multilateral disarmament and arms control processes. In such circumstances, our response should not be to retreat from negotiation, but to reaffirm our commitment to dialogue, restraint and cooperative solutions. This is precisely the moment when multilateralism must demonstrate its value. For too long, disarmament negotiations have struggled to maintain momentum, including in Geneva, where negotiation should remain at the heart of our collective endeavors. The Seventh Review Conference offers an opportunity to reverse this trend by providing a meaningful pathway forward on one of the most pressing challenges facing international community. We therefore encourage all States Parties and High Contracting Parties to approach the preparatory process with ambition, pragmatism and genuine willingness to engage constructively so that the considerable work that has already been undertaken can serve as the basis for our future progress, rather than be set aside. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished delegate of South Africa.

I see that Switzerland would like to take the floor. You have the floor.

Chair, good morning. We congratulate you, Ambassador Salcedo, on your appointment as chair of Main Committee II, and thank you for your readiness to assume this important responsibility. You can count on Switzerland's full cooperation and support as you work to secure a meaningful follow-on mandate of laws in the CCW. Our discussion on this matter comes on the heels of the positive conclusion of the work of the Group of Governmental Experts. Switzerland expresses its deep appreciation to Ambassador Robert Indenbosch, his team, and the CCW Implementation Support Unit for their clear, persistent, and inclusive efforts and for guiding the GGE towards this substantive outcome. By adopting its final report by consensus, including a set of elements of an instrument, the GGE fulfilled its mandate. This is a positive development. Multilateralism has delivered a concrete result on an issue that is technologically complex, militarily significant and geopolitically challenging. This achievement builds on more than 10 years of work in Geneva. It demonstrates that the CCW community has developed substantial expertise and capacity, as well as the ability to work across different legal, military, and political perspectives. We see this as a starting point, as an important foundation for the next phase of work, even though several significant questions concerning a future instrument require further clarification. In that regard, Switzerland regrets that some elements it considers important and central to such an instrument could not be retained in the outcome of the GGE. These open elements should therefore remain part of our consideration as we move from the set of elements towards a new instrument. Looking forward, we consider, like many other delegations, that the consensus outcome provides a viable basis for further work, and the logical next step is to carry the set of elements forward through negotiations. For our part, the objective remains a legally binding instrument within the CCW, and we remain open to an architecture combining legally binding and politically binding elements. Like other delegations that spoke before us, we consider that a mere rollover of the existing mandate or mere discussions, more of the same, would not be commensurate with the urgency and importance of the issue or with the substantive progress already achieved.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Switzerland. for your statement. And now I give the floor to Panama. Panama, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. At the outset, I'd like to congratulate you on the assumption of the chairmanship of the main committee. You can count on the support of Panama to conclude in a successful way our discussions. We'd like to thank the chair of the GGE Ambassador Robert Imden Bosch of the Netherlands for the very important work that he carried out over the last three years. His leadership and dedication, together with the invaluable support of his team, were the central reason why we have the current mandate. Nevertheless, we regret the fact In view of the need to achieve consensus, we adopted a report with some very important gaps, especially the fact that some critical elements were not part of this report, elements that would guarantee the protection of victims in armed conflicts and promote compliance with IHL, as well as some measures that would relate to operative orientations on how to apply human judgment and control in practice, and ethical considerations. The elements that are contained in the report are, of course, not binding. They cannot affect or cannot be interpreted in a way that would be incompatible with existing obligations in line with international law, especially prohibitions related to indiscriminate weapons and indiscriminate attacks and the obligation to guarantee accountability for violations of IHL. As far as the road to follow, my delegation believes that it would be appropriate to ensure that the seventh review conference take note of the set of elements of an instrument. Also, we support the beginning of negotiations on a new protocol to the CCW on lethal autonomous weapon systems that will include prohibitions and specific regulations in line with the joint appeal that was recently renewed by the UN Secretary General and the President of the ICRC. Since we do not have a mandate for negotiations, we have doubts about the value added or the cost benefit relationship in connection with the preservation of a GG that would simply repeat the same discussions that were held for the last 10 years. Now, if we adapt a mandate similar to what we just implemented, we would propose to reduce the number of days for meetings to the maximum of five days, taking into account the pretty busy calendar related to disarmament issues in Geneva. Finally, it would be interesting to explore Article 8 of the CCW as other possible option, as indicated in paragraph 13. in the document working document presented jointly by Belgium France and Germany and Singapore thank you

thank you very much to Panama and I thank you for the kind words addressed to the.

Republic of Korea followed by India Korea you have to foster.

Thank you chair we congratulate you on the assumption of the chairmanship of mc2 uh you can count on my delegation's full support We once again join other delegations in expressing our sincere appreciation to the chair of the group, Ambassador Robert Inden Bosch, for presenting the report adopted last week. As we stated in our general statement yesterday, the adoption of this report by consensus, despite our differing views on a number of critical issues, represent a remarkable collective achievement we should all be proud of. As we turn to our discussion on the future work of the group, my delegation wishes to reiterate its principled position that the GGE remains the most appropriate forum for addressing both the normative and operational aspects of the laws. We believe that the future discussions on laws should continue within the CCW framework. Furthermore, My delegation wishes to highlight the importance of bringing all major states into the process to ensure that our work remains practical, effective, and unified. Fragmentation of international effort to develop norms on laws would risk undermining the coherence and effectiveness of our collective work. The successful adoption of the GGE report demonstrates that Even where significant differences remain, our community is capable of bridging diverging views and building common grounds. This experience should give us confidence that we can likewise reach a mutually acceptable outcome on the modalities for future discussions on laws within the CCW at the review conference. My delegation therefore encourages all delegations to approach this discussion in a constructive and forward-looking spirit, with a view to preserving the unity of our efforts and ensuring that the CCW remains at the center of the international efforts on laws. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished delegate of Korea and now give the floor to the Ambassador of India. India, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me congratulate you, Ambassador Shailer Salcedo, for being elected as the Chairman-designate of Main Committee II. We thank Chairperson Ambassador Robert Inden Bosch and his team for his briefing to this Committee and for steering the group from 2024 to 2026 to a successful conclusion. India has engaged constructively and actively on GGE on Laws since its inception. Mr. Chair, the report adopted by the Group last week reaffirms the continuing and indeed growing relevance of this Convention as the appropriate platform for addressing the challenges posed by development and use of new weapon technologies. We continue to believe that CCW, bringing together major military powers alongside a wider membership, is the appropriate forum for this endeavour. The Group should continue to build on the substantial body of work it has produced, including the 11 Guiding Principles which the Elements agreed this year, build upon and concretize. Mr. Chair, India believes the Elements agreed represent a strong and carefully balanced foundation. At the same time, we recognize that emerging technologies in the area of laws continue to evolve rapidly and that our normative response should be able to keep pace with it. India has also underlined time and again that any future framework should be calibrated so as not to impede legitimate research, development and peaceful use of emerging technologies. Stigmatization of emerging technologies should be avoided. For these reasons, India would support a mandate for the Group, allowing sufficient time for it to continue deliberations in a structured and systematic manner. We would also welcome a mandate that allows this forum to serve as a space where States can discuss how the agreed elements and existing guiding principles are being implemented in the national jurisdictions and to exchange best practices in this regard. Mr. Chair, it is also important for all to acknowledge that Member States inhabit different security realities. Discussions on a specific instrument should endeavor to find common ground by taking into account the concerns of all. More importantly, the deliberations on emerging technologies in the area of laws should not lead to fragmentation of the normative sphere. effects to create ground for generating parallel mandates or parallel set of rules must be avoided. Mr. Chair, in the conclusion, we remain committed to working with all delegations in the spirit of consensus that has characterised the group's work to find common ground that takes into account the concerns of all. On this basis, India would encourage this Committee to recommend that Review Conference endorse the set of elements contained in the Group's report and decide by consensus on the future modalities of the Group's work, considering the views that we have outlined. I thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I thank the distinguished delegate of India.

Chair, at the outset, I would like to thank you for accepting the chairmanship of this committee. I would also like to thank and congratulate Ambassador Robert Imden Bosch and his team that guided the work of the GGE over the last three years. Their efforts made it possible for us to conclude with success the work of the group and implement the mandate. We've agreed on a substantive report that contains a set of constituent elements of an instrument. We now have a solid foundation to continue the work of the GGE. The report contains very important elements: a clear structure for a future instrument with a scope for application, thanks to characterization, the main preliminary principles, clear prohibitions, verification measures, risk mitigation measures, and finally, an articulation of accountability. The report confirms the double approach applied to lethal autonomous weapon systems between prohibitions on one hand and regulations on the other. The report proposes a detailed characterization of systems to be prohibited or regulated. And finally, the report specifies the notions related to human control and judgment and reaffirms the fact that human exercise control over autonomous systems. This report could not be and was not intended to be exhaustive. The elements discussed over the last three years, some elements are absent and we have to deepen our discussions between experts on these points. Legal reviews for modified systems, the limitations on modification of parameters, mission parameters by the system, technical characteristics of tests and evaluations, and the practical implementation of accountability. After this very important stage, work should continue to deal with these elements through in-depth discussion that will bring together the necessary expertise, especially legal and technical expertise. Therefore, we would like to see the Review Conference adopt a new mandate for the GGE that would built on the set of elements that were agreed to last week. For my delegation, as we have already said, this mandate could be a mandate for negotiations of a future instrument. Nevertheless, we do realize that views may differ. related to this mandate, and we are ready to work with you and with all delegations to come up with a mandate that could enjoy consensus. Thank you.

I would like to thank the distinguished delegate of France.

Give the floor to Italy. Italy, you have the floor then.

Gracias, Senor Presidente.

Thank you, sir. And may I take a moment to congratulate you for taking on the chairmanship of this committee?

To express our appreciation to Ambassador Inden Bosch for his stewardship of the work of the group and congratulate him on the successful outcome achieved last week. Despite the divergences remaining among delegations until this last session, we were pleased to witness a growing political will and the readiness to accept compromises that allowed us to narrow final gaps and move forward. Even though we started this process three years ago with a higher level of ambition, We recognize the importance of the elements we agreed upon. We developed a characterization of lethal autonomous weapons systems, which is broad enough to allow for further refinement in the negotiation of a future instrument. We reaffirmed that the rules of international humanitarian law governing the choice of means and methods of warfare fully applies to new weapons technologies, including LWS. We have recognition of the human element through the concepts of human judgment and control, which is exercised directly or indirectly. We have also measures that concretely translate these concepts and that aimed at safeguarding human responsibility and accountability. We continue to believe that the CCW represents the appropriate forum in which to explore the characteristics and implications of lethal autonomous weapons systems. The results achieved last week show that the CCW is not only capable of responding to technological change, but remains a living and effective instrument through which states can take concrete international action to respond to humanitarian concern. The seventh review conference will represent a unique opportunity to build on this important foundation and decide on an agreed approach progressing towards effective multilateral governance of laws. Gracias, Senor Presidente.

Thank you, sir. I now give the floor to the United States. United States, you have the floor.

Thank you for the floor, distinguished Chair, and congratulations on your selection to this important role. We stand ready to support you and your team. We'd like to start today by recognizing the CCW's significant accomplishment of last week. The GGE took on some of the most complex and cutting-edge issues in IHL and reached consensus on how to address them. This is a collective success of which we all should be proud. We are particularly grateful to Ambassador Endom Bosch, supported by his team and the ISU, for his leadership and the instrumental role he played in bringing us to this moment. We want to highlight two particular advances made by the GGE. First, the group reached consensus on a characterization of lethal autonomous weapons systems. This has long eluded us, in part because of the rapidly advancing technologies that underpin these systems. and the need to ensure that we were not being overly or underly inclusive to achieve consensus. The characterization describes in a flexible and clear way what about laws is distinctive as compared to other types of weapons. The group also made tremendous progress in elaborating the human element. In particular, the paragraphs explaining the concepts of control and human judgment in the context of compliance with IHL and the use of lethal autonomous weapon systems reflects critical advances in our collective thinking. Delegations came at these issues from many different perspectives, but the group took the time to come to consensus and explain the necessity for control and human judgment in upholding compliance with IHL, as well as how those concepts relate to each other and to the measures that can support IHL compliance. Even while taking stock of these tremendous accomplishments, I think we all acknowledge that there is still much work to do. Last week helped us identify issues on which the group simply needs more time to make more progress. These include, for example, a further elaboration of how existing IHL rules apply to the use of these weapons systems, as well as when and how modifications of the systems should be reviewed. The group did not have enough time to gain consensus on these topics and others, but their further exploration is key to continued work on lethal autonomous weapons systems in the CCW process. We hope that the work is continued under a future LOS mandate and that it will provide the group time to make further progress on these and other issues. Let us build on this momentum and the expert-driven process by further elaborating and clarifying how IHL rules apply to the use of laws, and what specific measures states should implement to support compliance with their IHL obligations. Regardless of the words of a future mandate, it is clear that we will need the resources and modalities necessary to complete the task. This includes sufficient time and almost certainly a multi-year mandate with more annual sessions for the work needed to formulate the mandated outcome. To develop an instrument, work on legal and technical issues would be needed in even more detail than in the past. It therefore is necessary to consider new modalities to facilitate that work, such as subgroups within the mandated body that are devoted to specific legal or technical issues. Perhaps just as importantly, the group will need to stay current on matters that are the subject of rapid developments in technology and state practice. To that end, voluntary exchanges among states on their practice on implementing their IHL obligations in the context of lethal autonomous weapon systems would directly inform the elaboration of an instrument and also serve as a confidence building and transparency measure that will be beneficial on its own. Clearly, there is a range of views on how best to take the success of the GGE forward. Whatever path we choose, we should prioritize advancement of substantive dialogue within the CCW framework, which has just shown that it can deliver. Thank you for your time.

I thank the United States, and I have Japan on my list. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and you will have my delegation's full support. And my delegation highly appreciate the adoption of the report at the GGE session last week, reflecting the discussions over the past three years. And we highly commend Ambassador Indenbush, the chair of the GGE, for your leadership and successfully bringing us to this remarkable outcome. Now, Mr. Chairperson, Japan attaches great importance to the development of universal and effective norms with regard to LOBs. The intensive discussions conducted in the GG LOBs have contributed to fostering a common understanding among member states, and there have been many areas in which Member States have been able to reach common ground despite differences in their positions. The international community should recognize the significance of these efforts and achievements. Now, building on these achievements, it is essential that we continue our substantive discussions on those within the framework of the CCW. in which 128 high contracting parties, including major players, participate, further develop a common understanding of those and work toward developing rules that can command consensus. Japan strongly hope that the 7th Review Conference will contribute to developing new common ground that will enable the GGE to continue its work in the future. Japan will continue to participate actively and constructively in international norm-building efforts with a view to fostering a common understanding across the international community through balanced discussions that take into account both humanitarian and security considerations. I thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I thank you, Japan. I now give the floor to Brazil. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, sir. The ASEAN delegation would like to congratulate you, Ambassador Shiloh Salcedo, for taking over the role as the chairperson for Main Committee 2. We would like to assure you of our full cooperation to ensure a successful outcome.

The Seventh Review Conference provides us with an important occasion to reaffirm its continued relevance. as a dynamic instrument of international humanitarian law. At a time of rapid technological change, preserving that capacity is essential to its credibility and effectiveness. In this context, Brazil believes that the progress achieved by the GGE laws in the past three-year mandate provides us with a concrete opportunity to demonstrate the continued relevance of the Convention. Last week, under the outstanding leadership of Ambassador Robert van den Bos of the Netherlands and his team, the GGE Laws adopted its substantive report. The text represents an important breakthrough in the efforts towards regulating the use of laws. After years of substantive work, significant areas of convergence have emerged. The GGE report recognizes the centrality of the concepts of control and human judgment to uphold compliance with international law applicable in armed conflict in the use of laws. It also contains a baseline of measures to give effect to such control and human judgment, as well as to safeguarding human responsibility and accountability in the use of laws. However, the report also has important shortcomings. In particular, the text was deprived of references to the need to ensure the reliability and predictability of laws, as well as traceability in their use, which were present in all the previous versions of the rolling text. The clear language on prohibitions originally contained in previous versions was also diluted. The final version fell short of recognizing obligations derived from existing IHL, in particular the prohibition of weapons whose effects cannot be anticipated or limited. Despite these shortcomings, it is unquestionable that the final report of the GGE contains a solid set of elements of an instrument on the regulation of loss, one that will serve as a firm foundation for future negotiations. Regarding future work, we appreciate the working paper circulated by Belgium, France and Singapore outlining the options for the next steps for addressing the issue of loss in the framework of the Convention. Our firm belief is that we have no option other than to move ahead. Therefore, one of the avenues listed in the working paper, namely the option to merely continue the current deliberative mandate of the GGE, is not an acceptable outcome for the Review Conference. If the Conference decides to extend the GGE, it should do so by giving it a clear mandate to negotiate an instrument on the regulation of loss. In our view, it should take the form of a legally binding new protocol to the Convention. Brazil understands that the CCW offers the best path towards the adoption of meaningful regulations on loss, but given the urgency of the matter, that objective cannot be indefinitely postponed. Brazil stands ready to work constructively with all delegations towards this objective. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Brazil. Now I'd like to recognize the delegation of Spain. You have the floor.

Chair, Distinguished Ambassador, first and foremost, we would like to congratulate you and thank you for taking on the responsibilities as Chair of Main Committee II. You can count on my delegation's full support. Distinguished Ambassador, Chair of the Group of Government Experts, the laws allow us, first and foremost, to thank you greatly for all your work, your patience, your strategies, and leading the intense debates, as well as the efforts made by your great team and the support implementation unit. Also, we appreciate the great involvement of all high contracting parties and the desire that together we can fulfill our mandate, which allows us to look as of today towards our future work. A few comments on the report and the whole set of approved elements. First, we value quite positively that in spite of starting divergent positions with different understandings or different views on this topic, throughout the many meetings and open, frank dialogues over the past three years, we were able to find areas of convergence, which have led us to a consensus document and therefore fulfill our mandate. Second, our delegation would like to appreciate that the report includes a characterization on laws, which is a landmark to be underscored. This is the implementation of international humanitarian law. It gathers the main element of the human element to human judgment and control measures, and it structured the report, followed the two-tier approach with provisions and regulations, which was a priority of many delegations from the very beginning, among them my own, that over time was welcomed by an increasing number and then all. It is also important that we have paragraphs referring to responsibility and accountability. Third, The report has been a key fundamental step forward without which we would not be able to assess and move forward constructively towards the review conference in which the report will be endorsed and what we appreciate and decide on the best possible mandate within the convention of certain conventional weapons. Mindful that the reality is not waiting for us to catch up and that is the responsibility of all of us to move forward. To conclude, Ambassador Endabosh, allow me to thank you for your work, your good faith, and diplomacy, without which we would hardly be in the good position in which we find ourselves today. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Spain.

Now.

I'd like to recognize Peru. Peru has the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. The delegation of Peru would like to begin by congratulating you, particularly for taking on the leadership of the Main Committee II of the Review Conference on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. We would also like to thank Ambassador Robert Edenbach for the presentation of the report of the Group of Governmental Experts on the Lethal Autonomous Weapons System. And we would also like to appreciate your leadership and the significant efforts deployed by him, by his team, by the Implementation Support Unit of the CCW throughout the past three years. Peru welcomes with satisfaction the outcome attained by consensus in the Group of Governmental Experts. In our view, it represents a significant step forward after years of work And it is proof that even giving different positions, it is possible to identify areas of convergence. The text that has been agreed upon includes substantive elements that ought to be preserved and further developed, as we have heard this morning. Among them, we have the central component of human element, the need to exercise human control and judgment in order to guarantee the enforcement of international humanitarian law. specific measures aimed at guaranteeing that this is enforced, among others. For Peru, the outcome of the GEGE are not to be seen as a destination, but rather as a foundation upon which we can build the next stage of our work. Peru has expressed consistently its support to developing a effective regulatory framework on lethal autonomous weapons. In view of that, we believe that the time is ripe to move towards a mandate that will allow us to turn the agreements and convergences we have had into more specific provisions and to develop the proper responses with regard to the systems that ought to be prohibited and those that ought to be regulated. All the while, we are fully aware that there are differences among the high contracting parties regarding the nature of a potential instrument as well as on some of its substantive elements. These differences should not be ignored. Quite the contrary, in our view, They should be yet another reason to continue the dialogue and to find ways in which to bring positions together. The consensus we recently garnered is proof that this is possible. Any next step should begin from all the work done by the GGE to carefully preserve the agreements attained and to ensure that all delegations effectively participate in building the outcome. In that regard, Peru is open to working with all high contracting parties in identifying a mandate that is bold enough to allow us to attain substantive progress, but also well enough balanced and inclusive enough to provide as broad a support as possible. The Seventh Review Conference represents an important opportunity we must ensure that the years of dialogue, conceptual development, and increasing convergence within the GGE can now lead to a new stage in the process. Peru will continue to contribute to these efforts with a constructive spirit, flexibility, and the resolve to build bridges between the various positions. Thank you very much, sir.

I would like to thank the distinguished delegate of Peru. And now I would like to give the floor to New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair, and congratulations on your appointment as chair of this main committee. New Zealand thanks the chair of the GGE, Ambassador Hindenbosch, and his team for guiding us to agreement on a set of elements for an instrument on laws. While we would have preferred a stronger outcome in several areas, nevertheless, this is an important foundation for further work, and we commend the ambassador for getting us there and fulfilling our mandate. For New Zealand, the next step is a clear mandate at the November review conference to negotiate an instrument based on the two-tiered approach of prohibitions and regulation. We continue to favour a legally binding instrument. Simply renewing the existing mandate to produce another iteration of these elements would not be adequate. The work of the GGE has identified the key issues, and while there still remain differing views on some aspects, the GGE's work has provided a basis for moving from discussion and elaboration to negotiation, including on those areas where we did not achieve agreement within the current mandate. A legally binding instrument would establish common obligations and standards, strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law, and provide a durable framework, and we believe this is urgently needed. Finally, Chair, we welcome the joint working paper on options within the CCW presented by Belgium, France, Germany, and Singapore. That paper provides a useful basis for discussing how we take this work forward and sets out a wide range of possible options for consideration. We are ready to engage pragmatically on how negotiations are organized, but reiterate again that it is time to move forward towards negotiating an instrument. Thank you, Chair.

I thank New Zealand, and now I give the floor to the Philippines. Philippines, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the statement, our delegation would like to congratulate Ambassador Inden Bosch for his able stewardship of the conclusion of the mandate of the GGE on Laws. It has been a challenging undertaking, but the Ambassador's leadership, together with the indefatigable efforts of his team, enabled the Group to successfully conclude its mandate and deliver an outcome report. The work undertaken by the Group over the past three years, building upon the substantive work carried out in previous years, will provide an important basis for the next stage of our multilateral efforts to address autonomous weapons systems. As mentioned in our intervention yesterday, the Philippines supports a negotiating mandate concerning LWS. Our delegation also takes this opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Scheller-Salcedo on assuming the role of Chair of Main Committee II of the Review Conference, a crucial responsibility that comes on the heels of the conclusion of the GGE on LWS. In this regard, our delegation underscores that the issue of autonomous weapons systems concerns us all. It should therefore not be viewed as a matter to be discussed mainly by the great military powers, but as an issue that requires the meaningful engagement of the entire international community. The Philippines stands ready to continue working with you constructively, Chair, as you guide Main Committee II towards a successful outcome at the Review Conference. Thank you very much.

I thank the Philippines for her statement, and I now give the floor to Singapore. Singapore, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As this is the first time my delegation is taking the floor, Singapore congratulates Ambassador Julian Turney of Switzerland on his appointment as President-designate of the Seventh CCW Review Conference, as well as Your Excellency Ambassador Salcedo of Peru on taking up the appointment as Chairperson of Main Committee II. My delegation assures you of our full support and participation in a constructive manner. In addition, Singapore congratulates and expresses appreciation to Ambassador Robert Indenbosch and his team from the Netherlands for their outstanding stewardship of the GGE on Loss. We also acknowledge the critical role that the ISU from UNODA serves in these processes. We agree with Ambassador Robert's view that it was indeed a monumental result. In our view, the fulfilment of the mandate of the GGE on Loss reflects the collective political commitment of participating delegations resulting in the group arriving at consensus on a set of elements on laws. We now have a solid foundation for future work, with consensus on issues such as the characterisation of laws and the human element regarding control and human judgement. In our view, this outcome is testament to the enduring value of the CCW. The CCW's convening of legal, military and technological expertise under one roof create the conditions for robust discussions. These discussions in turn lead to substantive proposals grounded in technical and operational realities. Clearly, the GG on laws under the CCW remains the appropriate and effective forum regarding laws. We therefore encourage all States to continue investing in this platform as the work ahead of us is significant. We therefore encourage all High Contracting Parties to continue investing as the work is necessary. Mr. Chair, an LBI would be considered by many as the gold standard of the industry. international rules-based order. We share the collective aspiration of many for laws to be governed by a robust set of binding rules. That said, any LBI that is premature would not be the gold standard that the world requires. If the states with significant capabilities in the development and operation of laws are not party to such an LBI, it would then hardly be considered effective. As some colleagues have mentioned at the side event convened by Belgium yesterday on the possible way forward regarding laws under the CCW, an option could be a new mandate to work on legal, operational and technical issues in more detail. Such discussions are essential if we want to resolve critical differences in the understanding of such emerging technologies. Our delegation will keep an open mind and listen to suggestions from other High Contracting Parties on the way forward. Chair, Singapore reiterates and assures you of our constructive participation at the 7th RefCon in November. We look forward to the continuing engagement of all delegations. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished delegate of Singapore for his statement.

Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Chair, at the outset, I would like to congratulate you on your election as chair of this committee and to convey my delegation's commitment to bring all the work on our plate to a successful conclusion. Mexico would like to express appreciation to Ambassador Robert Inderbund for his leadership, dedication, and commitment at the head of the GGE, as well as to all the delegations for the work carried out and for the efforts deployed in order to attain a result by consensus. Like other delegations, it is our view that the Group fulfilled the mandate granted to it, and that the report that we have before us today includes significant elements of agreement, and it is a significantly strong foundation to move forward with it. At the same time, we regret that some relevant issues were left aside and that in trying to garner a consensus, we discarded important elements that Mexico would have wished to see included in the final outcome. For example, we would have appreciated to have a more robust result in traceability and accountability, a more clear definition of human judgment and control, better guarantees on predictability of these systems, and more firm provisions on proof and prevention of bias. These differences do not reduce the value of the work we've done, though. Quite the opposite. They are proof that we have already identified clearly enough the matters that call for regulatory response and that we have a strong enough foundation to address them. It is precisely because of this that the group has fulfilled its mandate, that Mexico believes that the next step should not be to open up a new cycle of deliberations on these very same issues, but rather to move towards their negotiation. Chair, technologies move apace. Our legal and political response needs to move as quickly. The time has come to move from deliberation to negotiation. For Mexico, it is fundamental that the review conference agrees on a clear negotiation mandate to draft an international instrument on lethal autonomous weapons systems that sets forth prohibitions and clear regulations and effectively maintains the human element and that places above everything else the protection of victims and meeting with international humanitarian law. The group's report ought to be a foundation for this next step. The review conference, while taking note of this report, now has an opportunity to show that the CCW can boldly address with accountability to all the challenges raised by new technologies. We are ready to work with all delegations in moving towards that negotiation. Thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished delegates of Mexico. And now I'd like to give the floor to Germany.

I congratulate you for your appointment as the chair of Main Committee II. You can count on my delegation's support in your endeavors in guiding the work of Main Committee II and before and at the RefCon. My delegation wishes to thank Ambassador Indenbosh for having steered the very challenging work of the GGE LOS over the past three years. We wish to congratulate you, Ambassador Indenbosh, for having steered it towards success, which is to have a consented report identifying a set of elements for an instrument and other measures as the basis for our future work on this very complex issue of lethal autonomous weapons systems. We, as others, would have wished to have certain additional elements in the report, but consensus is built on concessions that all sides have to make. And looking at the text after a few nights rest, we look at what we have agreed to as an excellent result, given the differences in positions and the many ways this process could have been derailed. But we now have a characterization a better understanding of the human element, a clear statement on the applicability of IHL, and first possible measures for regulation. We are looking forward to discussing the next mandate at the upcoming review conference, advancing and deepening our collective work on a meaningful instrument regarding the lethal autonomous weapon systems. The CCW is the right place to address these issues. Once again, a great thank you to Ambassador Endenbosch, his team, and the CCW ISU for all the work of the past week, months, and years, resulting in a substantive consensus result so rarely seen in Geneva these days. The significance and importance of this result should not be underestimated. Mr. Chair, Ambassador Salcedo, I thank you.

Thank you very much to the distinguished delegate of Germany.

Now, I have on my list Colombia, to be followed by Cuba.

Thank you very much, Ambassador, and we congratulate you on your nomination as chair of the Main Committee. to and you can count on the support of my delegation Colombia is ready to continue with our work on lethal autonomous weapon systems we welcome the report that was finalized by consensus which is a result of very hard work of the GG over three years and a conversation that has been held for many years. This report shows the capacity of delegations under the leadership of Ambassador Imbembo and his team to reach agreements on issues that have to be urgently regulated. The text does not enjoy the ambition that many delegations were hoping for, but It complies with the mandate of the GGE that was aimed at identifying a set of elements and other questions related to laws. Now we need to take the next step. The challenges that we face have been enumerated in a working paper that was prepared by several delegations. Colombia believes that our work should continue with a new mandate for the GGE. that should be given by the next review conference. And this new mandate should be a mandate for negotiations for an instrument on this issue. Our future work should be carried out within the framework of the CCW and should have as its foundation the report of the GG on laws, including the interpretative declarations that were given by the Chair Friday afternoon in connection with the question of characterization that we have agreed to. We do hope that this new mandate will be adopted during the upcoming review conference. Thank you.

Thank you, Colombia.

Thank you, Colombia. I now give the floor to Cuba.

Thank you, Chair. We thank you for this opportunity to take the floor on this crucial issue. We congratulate you on your nomination as the Chair of Main Committee II of the Seventh Review Conference of the CCW. Cuba takes note of the final report of the GGE on laws that concluded its mandate after three years of hard work. We recognize the efforts of the chair, Ambassador Imdem Bosch, his team, and other delegations that for more than 10 years discussed this issue to build a foundation for our future work. In this context, we highlight the appeal by majority of contracting parties to the Convention, countries that have expressed their readiness to move towards the finalization of a legally binding instrument on this issue. We praise the fact that the time for discussions is over, and we must renew our trust in the Convention and take a step forward towards the negotiation of a new protocol, as was requested by the UN Secretary General and the President of the ICRC. We regret the fact that the adopted text does not reflect the numerous concerns that were expressed during the work of this group, which include such cardinal issues like the double approach on restrictions and prohibitions, significant, meaningful human judgment and control throughout the life cycle of such weapons. Elimination of prohibitions on the use of such systems, what is also deleted, where ethical considerations and references to the predictability, reliability, explainability, and traceability of these systems was deleted. Elements that are crucial to comply with IHL or any regime related to meaningful control. We must stress that no algorithm, no matter how sophisticated it is, can replace the legal and ethical obligations of states and individuals under IHL. Chair, this seventh review conference represents a decisive moment. The text that we have, even though it was weakened, is a sufficient foundation for our future work, and many, many delegations have recognized it as such. Cuba is ready to work constructively on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the distinguished delegation of Cuba.

To Norway. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, chair, and congratulations on your nomination. Thank you for taking on this important role. We would also like to start by thanking Ambassador Inden Bosch and his team, and the ISU, for their outstanding work in steering the GGE on laws towards a consensus on a substantive report last week. That was a significant achievement. Chair, we have the following proposals to make for the work of MC2. First, the solemn declaration of the review conference should acknowledge the value of the conclusions of the GGE on laws and endorse the set of elements that are contained in its report. Second, the review conference should take a decision to establish a negotiation mandate for an instrument on autonomous weapons systems. It is high time we moved from discussions to concrete regulations. With a negotiations mandate and a defined goal and instrument, we will enable ourselves to change gears and make effective progress within a forum that is uniquely well suited to tackle this complex, multidisciplinary issue. The discussions on laws date back more than a decade. After 10 years of discussing legal, technical, ethical and military aspects of laws, as well as operational and other frameworks on laws, the CCW in 2023 gave the GGE a mandate to formulate a set of elements for an instrument on laws, not just elements on laws in general, but elements of an instrument specifically. That set of elements has now been concluded. The elements formulated by the DG have clear shortcomings, in our view. They only list some measures relevant to maintaining human control over laws, and a number of important measures did not reach sufficient maturity in time and were therefore not carried forward into the final text. That includes, for example, requirements relating to human authorisation of material modifications to mission and target parameters. Similarly, the importance of ensuring that laws remain reliable, predictable and adequately explainable and traceable was not ultimately reflected in the report. The task of determining where the limits of acceptable autonomy lie remains ahead of us. Yet the elements also represent substantial progress, showing the continued relevance and considerable value of the CCW. Working characterization for laws was finally achieved. The need for control and human judgment to ensure compliance with IHL was recognized. A number of basic measures to ensure that humans retain such control were laid out. And the need for bias mitigation was highlighted, and a range of other measures to reduce risks and promote human responsibility and accountability were set out. Taken together, the elements provide the necessary basis, and a sufficient basis at that, for negotiations on the actual instrument to commence. Although many issues discussed did not make it into the GGE final report, the very rich discussions for more than a decade now provide an important body of work on which further progress can be built. As underscored in a number of joint statements over the past year, the various outstanding issues can and should be resolved in the negotiations on the instrument itself. We just needed a starting point, and now we have one, one that neither prejudices the scope, outcome, or nature of that instrument. The negotiations can and likely should be supplemented with meetings of specific substance matter experts as necessary, like the negotiation mandates on explosive remnants of war in the early 2000s provided for. Finally, on the issue of the nature of the instrument, we believe that the mandate should open for a combination of prohibitions, regulations and guidelines, as well as other understandings. Although a legally binding instrument should, in our opinion, be an aim of those negotiations, the mandate should not exclude the development of other practical measures and guidelines that, in our view, also have an important role to play. We are ready to work with all delegations in pursuit of a successful and meaningful outcome at the seventh review conference.

I thank you, Norway. Thank you for your statement. And now I give the floor to Ireland. Ireland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation likewise echoes others in congratulating you on assuming this important role. The CCW is a dynamic convention meant to respond to the ever-evolving means and methods of warfare used during armed conflicts. One such pressing concern is around the urgent challenges posed by autonomous weapon systems. These challenges are not new. Indeed, we've been grappling with them for well over a decade, but they are becoming ever more acute as such systems are increasingly employed on the battlefield. As we stated in our general exchange remarks yesterday, the work of Ambassador Robert In den Bosch of the Netherlands and his team over the course of the three-year GGE mandate, supported by the ISU, deserves praise. In these challenging times, the consensus adoption of a substantive outcome document stands out as a particularly significant achievement which signifies collective recognition that action is required urgently. The set of elements within the final report should help us move forward, in particular the characterisation of laws and the accompanying chair's interpretive declaration, as well as further defining the human element needed for compliance with international law in armed conflict. These represent an agreed minimal basis to advance our wider efforts. As colleagues here will be aware, There were important and strong elements of the chair's 5 June rolling text that were, unfortunately, lost during our final deliberations. Those included recognition of the need for predictability, reliability and traceability in relation to laws and their use. Likewise, the role of ethical perspectives and the need for legal reviews of systems after modification were removed and were a point of disappointment for my delegation. Those and other aspects of the chair's rolling text remain relevant and urgent in the eyes of most high contracting parties. The outcome of the GGE helps to serve the basis of advancing a wider goal that remains pressing and has gained added momentum. Indeed, last week, a majority of high contracting parties called for advancement of negotiations within the CCW on an instrument on lethal autonomous weapons systems, informed by the final report of the chair. Such a call was given clear expression in joint statements delivered by Algeria on behalf of the African High Contracting Parties to the CCW and by Brazil, coordinated with Norway and Ireland, on behalf of 47 States. These statements were clear that we should use the outcome of the GGE as a basis for future negotiations. We need to ensure this is realized at the forthcoming Seventh Review Conference. Like others, we welcome the working papers submitted by Belgium, France, Germany and Singapore to this preparatory committee meeting on possible avenues for an instrument on laws within the CCW. It gives high contracting parties the opportunity to, as it were, assess the means and methods of advancing an instrument on laws within the CCW as a matter of urgency. While we study its options, let me make one thing clear on behalf of my delegation. A rollover of the GGE mandate or further conceptual discussions are no longer appropriate and, crucially, would run counter to the needs of the moment. We have had over 10 years of discussions, where significant convergences have been realised. Now we have an agreed set of elements that can inform a future instrument. The time to move forward by adopting a negotiation mandate at the review conference in November for a new protocol to this key convention has arrived. Chair, we look forward to engaging with you and other delegations to make this a reality in November. Thank you.

I thank Ireland for his statement. Distinguished delegates, Excellencies, I wish to inform that I have on my speakers list of high contracting parties as last speaker, Israel. So before giving Israel the floor, I'd like to know if there is any other high contracting parties who wishes to take the floor after Israel. And if that is not the case, then after Israel, I will give then the floor to the observers who are in this room and have requested the floor. Israel, you have the floor, sir.

At.

The outset, distinguished Ambassador, I'd like to congratulate you on assuming this very important role, Chair of Main Committee 2.

We already referred to the topic of the GGE on laws yesterday under the general statements, but at the risk of repeating ourselves, we would like to reiterate our position under this agenda item. Allow me then to take the opportunity to congratulate and express our gratitude to the Ambassador of the Netherlands, His Excellency Mr. Robert Indenbosch, and his team for his skillful leadership of the GGE on LOS, which has allowed us to reach a significant milestone on this highly important topic. Thanks also to the ISU for the continued support to the GGE efforts. This achievement, Mr. Chair, by the GGE is the most recent example of why the CCW is the most appropriate forum to continue our discussion on this topic. The final report is a result of a multilateral discussion conducted under a clear mandate that has brought us to an outcome that indeed does not prejudge the nature of our agreed recommendations and possible elements, and it should be viewed as such. We stand ready to continue the constructive discussion in future mandates as determined by the CCW High Contracting Parties in November. Muchas gracias, Mr. Chair.

Muchas gracias, Israel. I do have, I think, the Russian Federation wishes to take the floor again. Please, do go ahead, Russian Federation. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, distinguished Chair. We would also like to make a statement on issues that were proposed by different delegations during the informal consultations that preceded the meeting of the PrepCom and also during the meetings of the PrepCom yesterday, proposals related to the issues that could be included in the agenda of the CCW, especially Main Committee II, in addition to the issue of lethal autonomous weapons systems. We believe that targeted discussions in Main Committee II of any new issues can be carried out only in connection with the initiatives that are introduced officially with the understanding that a priori they enjoy consensus. In light of the above, we would like to make a comment related to the introduction for discussions in the CCW of the issue of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and also the preparation of additional norms in that particular area. We find such initiatives to be untenable. Questions related to the use of explosive weapons and relevant problems is directly related with the question of strict compliance of existing provisions of international legal instruments. For example, the Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. as well as the CCW and its protocols. We believe that existing legal regulations to be sufficient. Moreover, we have serious doubts that the question of the use of explosive weapons actually falls within the mandate of the convention. Rather, this is an issue that should be discussed in four that discusses issues related to the implementation of IHL, we do not see any need to develop any new norms or carry out separate expert-based work within the CCW in connection with the question of EWIPA. We also cannot support separate initiatives to introduce for discussions here in the CCW of additional issues that we believe have little connection to the Convention, for example, the issue of gender. We believe that such issues do not have any direct connection to the objectives and purposes of the Convention, and we do not find it advisable to introduce these questions for any separate discussions during the upcoming Seventh Review Conference. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia, for your precisions. And I now begin with my list of speakers of the observers to this process. May I give the floor to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the ICRC joins others in congratulating you on your appointment as Chair of the Main Committee, too. Mr. Chair, we would like to commend the Group of Governmental Experts on Laws for reaching consensus and successfully completing its mandate in a difficult environment. We particularly note the outstanding work done by the Chair, Ambassador Indenbosch, and his team, along with the CCW ISU, for creating the conditions that facilitated this consensus. We were encouraged by the large number of States that showed a clear willingness to finalise the mandate and progress towards negotiations. And we welcome the joint statements last week made by Brazil on behalf of 47 states and by Algeria on behalf of the African group in this regard. Mr. Chair, the group made significant progress over its three years. It developed a substantial corpus of work, including a working characterization of lethal autonomous weapons systems and a structure of prohibitions and restrictions. Importantly, the final report affirmed that control and human judgment must be retained in the use of force, and that accountability for decisions involving the use of autonomous weapons cannot be transferred to a machine. This aligns with what the ICRC has emphasized for many years, and its inclusion in the report is significant. The report does not take the next step of translating these findings into the specific operational guidance that is needed to give direction to those developing and using these weapons. It rather recalls general principles and rules of IHL. This is a missed opportunity, but it is far from a dead end. Taken together, the final report and the substantial body of work developed by the group, by the chair, and by states over the past three years constitute a strong and sufficient basis to launch negotiations on a legally binding instrument. Outstanding issues, including a prohibition on anti-personnel autonomous weapon systems, and a prohibition on unpredictable autonomous weapons systems, which found broad support throughout the Group's mandate but was not retained in the final text, can and should be resolved within those negotiations and not used as a reason to delay them further. Mr. Chair, we would like to highlight once again that the Group has completed its mandate. It is finished, concluded, finalised and done. It is achieved, accomplished, realized, and affected. It is fulfilled, consummated, executed, and discharged. In short, Mr. Chair, it is an X mandate. The group has formulated a set of elements of an instrument to address emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems. The next step, and really the only step that makes sense, is obviously to create the instrument that will contain these elements. The ICRC therefore reiterates its call on States to take the decision at the November Review Conference to launch negotiations on a new protocol to the CCW on autonomous weapons systems. In line with our role under the CCW's rules of procedure and our mandate to promote and strengthen respect for international humanitarian law, the ICRC stands ready to support States with our legal and policy expertise throughout this process. We continue to stress the urgency of this exercise. To delay further is not an option. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the ICRC representative. I now give the floor to Matt for Peace. Matt for Peace, you have the floor.

We wish to welcome the consensus made in Geneva after the meeting of the GGE on autonomous weapons and the affirmation that human control should not be transferred to machines. However, this is not enough to address the challenges and the rapid movement into Integrating artificial intelligence in the battlefield. In this regard, NATO expresses its concern regarding the omission of crucial elements from the agreed-upon text. We call for the explicit inclusion, most importantly, reliability and predictability of behavior as a prerequisite for any development or deployment, full traceability of algorithmic decisions, strict safeguards preventing the modification of objectives without direct human authorization, a commitment to conducting periodic legal reviews of systems after any technical modification. Regarding human control, MAD insists that weapon systems must be subject to effective human control and oversight throughout their life cycle, including design, testing, deployment, and use. Human intervention must retain the ability to intervene immediately and disable systems. Precise operational constraints must be established, encompassing timeframes, geographic scope, and target type. Matt, emphasizes the need for a two-pronged approach that combines prohibiting systems that pose unacceptable risks with regulating other military applications of artificial intelligence. We stress in this respect, Mr. Chair, that the prohibition must include the systems that lack transparency or whose behavior, effects, and control cannot be adequately understood or controlled. In conclusion, Mr. President, we call for a balanced approach to make the best use of AI while transferring the technology, transferring the technology for developing countries in order to prevent any monopoly over them. Thank you.

Shukran kithir to MAAD for Peace. I now give the floor to the International Humanitarian Law Youth Initiative, the IHL-YI. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We congratulate you on the chairmanship of the Main Committee II. The IHL-YI welcomes the presentation of the final report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems. We would also like to express our appreciation to the GGE Chair and his team and the CCW ISU for their efforts throughout this process. For us, this is also an especially meaningful moment. We have been engaged in the discussions on autonomous weapons for several years. and over the past three years, through IHOYI, we have worked with a great commitment to contribute to the discussions and negotiations, raise awareness and bring the perspectives of young lawyers, academics, researchers and civil society into this process. We welcome the consensus reached on the final report. In the current international context, achieving consensus among states is an important accomplishment. We also welcome the reaffirmation of the applicability of international law, including international humanitarian law, the importance of human judgment and control, and the principle that human responsibility and accountability cannot be transferred to machines. However, we believe that consensus should be understood as a starting point, not the end of the discussion. In this regard, we would like to offer the following recommendations for the way forward. First, States should build upon the elements developed through the work of the GGE and ensure that consensus does not result in weakening or rolling back important elements developed over the past three years. Second, States should continue working towards clear prohibitions and restrictions on autonomous weapons systems or their use where compliance with international humanitarian law cannot be ensured or where they present unacceptable humanitarian, legal, or ethical risks. Third, Issues of reliability, predictability, traceability, testing, and legal review should be addressed through the life cycle of autonomous weapon systems, including following significant modifications to these systems. Fourth, discussions should move beyond reaffirming general principles towards clearer and more effective rules and mechanisms to ensure human responsibility, meaningful human judgment and effective human control over the use of force. Fifth, States should use the seventh review conference in November as an opportunity to move from years of discussion towards concrete steps for the development of a legally binding international framework to regulate autonomous weapons. We also emphasize the importance of continued meaningful and sustained participation of young people and civil society in the next phase of this process. Young people should not be simply recipients of these discussions, but active contributors to shaping the rules that will govern the future of warfare and technology. The GGE has concluded its mandate, but the responsibility to address the humanitarian, legal, and ethical challenges posed by autonomous weapons remains. Consensus is important, but it should be the beginning of more ambitious action, not the ceiling of what states can achieve. I thank you.

I thank you very much to the distinguished delegate of the IHLAYI. And I now give the floor to the Institute for Global Negotiations. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I would like to congratulate you on your nomination as a chairperson of the Main Committee II for the seventh review conference. We would like, like others, to thank Ambassador Nden Bosch for the presentation of the report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems. and we would like to thank him for his tireless efforts as chairperson to steer the deliberations and negotiations in the GGE on LOS. At a time when multilateralism is being questioned, the GGE on LOS has proved that it is challenging, yet possible, to forge consensus. It has proved possible to reach consensus under the leadership of the chairperson, with the involvement and commitment of all negotiators and experts. and with the support of the Implementation Support Unit. Useful lessons can be learned and our Institute, with its global negotiation support, we stand ready to engage moving forward as we support chairs, facilitators and negotiating bodies across UN and other multilateral processes. In doing so, we collaborate with secretariats or complement the roles of secretariats. We are for impartial advice, confidential advice, expert advice from a negotiation viewpoint to ensure that multilateral processes provide negotiation formats and modalities conducive to forge agreement. Ahead of the CCW seventh review conference, we would stand ready to engage with all to draw lessons from a process viewpoint from the GGE on laws. possibly informal exchanges, possibly under Chatham House rule, could for instance contribute identifying key parameters on process design and process management and could inform consideration of lethal autonomous weapon systems at the main committee too at the review conference and thereafter. Moving forward we'll also stand ready to support high contracting parties with a view of further leveraging the range of negotiation tools and techniques. The power of negotiation and possibly collaborative negotiation can be further mobilized to navigate real or perceived power dynamics, real or passive competing interests, with a view of enhancing the ability to forge agreement on the way forward regarding complex global issues such as lethal autonomous weapons systems. Mr. Chairperson of the Main Committee II, you can count on us and our support in the period running up to the CCW Seventh Review Conference. I thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Thank you very much for your disposal. And I have exhausted my list of speakers, both from high contracting parties and observers, and I don't see any flags. racing in order to take the floor. So I'd like to thank all delegations, high contracting parties and observers for all their interventions and very useful insights on how we ought to proceed from here where we stand now on. I look really forward to closely work with you in the weeks and months ahead, in particular with a view to advancing discussions and working towards consensus on a mandate and modalities of future works on laws under the Convention. As there are no more requests for the floor at this point, I will now hand over the podium to the chairperson of the preparatory committee, Ambassador Toney. Thank you very much.

Excellencies, dear colleagues, I would like to thank Chairperson Salcedo, Chairperson of Main Committee II, for having guided us on all debates under item 8 of our agenda. It was a very rich debate. Now we have almost come to item 9 on the agenda, which relates to financial issues. But just for organizational matters, we're going to tackle that item this afternoon, which means that we will have a debate on a point that seems to interest many delegations. So I would like to resume this afternoon at 1500 hours with agenda item 9. 00 p.m. to consider agenda item 9. I expect we will be distributing the next draft as well, the draft report of the preparatory committee. so that if delegations are ready, we could begin discussion on the draft report this afternoon already. So having said that, I would like to wish you all a good lunch, and we'll meet again here at 1500 hours. Meeting is adjourned.