10th Meeting - 2nd Session Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems 2025

So let's see whether we can make it a happy Friday. Welcome back. We are now at item number six, other matters. And under other matters, I already promised that I will take a moment to outline my plans for the way forward in our work, and then, of course, we will have the opportunity for delegations to react, but also to raise other matters. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I would ask, during our previous intersessional periods, I will not sit still. I intend to actively advance our work as much as possible. That said, my team and I have a substantial amount of homework from this week. In the short term, I believe we can realistically deliver on two key outputs. One, a Chair's Summary of this week, issued under my own authority, and two, a revised version of the entire rolling text based on our constructive deliberations and proposals put forward during this session. This might take some more time than you are used to, because we have only two sessions left. And with that in mind, I will have to develop precise language that would focus on bridging still existing divergences in the room. Following the circulation of a revised rolling text, I plan to organize intersessional informal consultations to continue our substantive exchanges on the elements and begin preparing for our 2026 sessions. I will inform you of further details, including concrete timelines. However, looking at our agendas, intersessional consultations will likely have to be in late January or early February. And the objective would be to finalize our intersessional program a month before the formal session in order to provide delegations with sufficient time for preparation. In the meantime, and as always, my team and I stand by for informal consultations at the request of delegations, including during the UNGA First Committee in New York in October. In parallel, as requested by the mandate, I will provide an update on our work to the meeting of High Contracting Parties of the CCW in November. This will be an oral briefing and will contain my perspective on the progress we have been making in our deliberations. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, as I noted in my opening on Monday morning, we are now two-thirds of the way through our mandate, with only two formal sessions remaining to complete our work. I'm encouraged by the substantive and focused progress we have achieved this week, while also recognizing that significant work remains. That is why our first session in 2020, 2026 will continue to focus on discussions of the new version of the ruling text, ensuring that the elaboration of a set of elements remains the primary substantive focus of our work. Regarding the final report, we are required to adopt and submit it to the seventh review conference of the CCW. And my intention is to retain a focus on the set of elements which we are asked to formulate. These elements will be the substance. My approach is to keep the rest of the report strictly procedural. It will be up to the review conference to decide how to handle the report. The draft will be shared with delegations well in advance of our second session in 2026. thus allowing for the necessary informal consultations with high contracting parties in different formats. And I trust this approach is agreeable to delegations. And if any delegation wishes to share views on the way forward, I now invite you to take the floor. I see one request for the floor so far. Let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Italy. You have the floor.

Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. Actually, my apologies because we thought that we could still express our views on section 1, but since you opened the way forward, we will not do that and maybe we will present our thoughts at a later stage. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other one? Yes, I recognize the distinguished representative of Brazil. Ambassador, you have the floor.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I take the floor on behalf of the 39 high contracting parties, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mexico, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and my own country, Brazil. Observer states of Kiribati, Samoa, and Thailand also associate themselves to this statement. Sorry. We would like to thank you, your team, and the friends of the Chair for producing the latest revision of the rolling text and for the extensive and thorough consultations you have conducted since the first session of the GGE in March. Mr. Chair, during these consultations, Many delegations have made valuable contributions aimed at clarifying details and strengthening the core elements of the text. The text has benefited from the engagement and expert insights of the ICRC and nongovernmental organizations. Chair. We believe it's important at this stage to record our view that while the rolling text remains a work in progress, it's a sufficient basis to fulfill the mandate of the GGE in its current form. The text contains a coherent and well-structured set of elements of an instrument to address emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapon systems. It takes into account the example of existing protocols under the convention. It builds upon past recommendations and conclusions of the GGE on loss and draws on expensive, on legal, military, and technological aspects. It follows the widely supported two-tier approach, including prohibitions on some types of loss and restrictions on the design and use of others. The text also contains important elements related to the need to uphold and strengthen compliance. Just a second. Computer is very good, but paper is better. the restriction and use of force. The text also contains important elements related to the need to uphold and strengthen compliance with international law, in particular international humanitarian law, IHL, including through maintaining human responsibility and accountability in the use of force involving laws. In this regard, We note the growing convergence around the concept of context-appropriate human judgment and control as a key principle in this regard. In summary, while our delegations are prepared to keep working on the rolling text in order to further improve it, The rolling text contains a set of elements that we consider as sufficient basis for negotiations of an instrument on lethal autonomous weapon systems. We are fully prepared to continue working with delegations in order to further refine and improve the text with the fulfillment of our mandate as our constant guiding objective. Given the constructive character of our discussions thus far, we are convinced that any remaining differences can be resolved until the end of our mandate. After that, we believe that any further outstanding issues can can and should be addressed in context of subsequent negotiations on an instrument. Mr. Chair, we remain convinced that the need of urgent action on this issue and has been articulated by the UN Secretary General and the President of the ICRC, among others, and reaffirmed in the Pact of the Future. We are therefore ready to move ahead towards negotiations within the CCW on the basis of the rolling text, and we invite all high contracting parties to support this goal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the ambassador of Brazil, speaking on behalf of 39 high contracting parties and three observers. Are there any other requests for the floor? This is ICRC. Yes, I recognize the plate of ICRC. You have the floor.

Thank you. I'm addressing the room as the International Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. Wrong flag. Part of both. Thank you, Chair. Stop Killer Robots welcomes the joint statement delivered by Brazil. To hear 42 states from across regional and political groupings affirm that the rolling text has positively matured, is sufficient to fulfill the mandate of the GGE, and can form the basis for negotiating an instrument on autonomous weapons systems, and this is a real step forward. In particular, we greatly welcome that these States have collectively concluded they are ready to move ahead towards negotiations. We urge States to take this commitment seriously and to move to launch negotiations on a legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems as soon as possible. Such an instrument should apply to the broad scope of weapons systems that select and engage targets based on sensor inputs rather than an immediate human command, For stop killer robots, a legally binding instrument must contain prohibitions on systems that are fundamentally unacceptable, notably those that target people and those that inherently lack meaningful human control. The instrument should also include positive obligations to ensure meaningful human control over all systems. States already share much common ground on the need for a two-tiered approach of prohibitions and regulations, on the need for meaningful human control, and on many of the basic elements of such control. The time to act is now. We are already seeing in reports on the use of decision support systems in Gaza the devastating harm to civilians caused by technologies that erode the role of human decision-making and entail digital dehumanization and the use of force. We are also seeing increased interest and investment in autonomy and weapons systems around the world. States must now move to negotiations. They should include all states who are willing to turn the common ground they have developed into law. Negotiations must take place in a way that does not allow progress to be obstructed by those acting in bad faith, and also must have the full participation of civil society and other observers. We stand ready to support states in taking the courageous political action needed to negotiate a treaty that will save lives and stop the slide towards the automation of killing. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Killer Robots. Next on my list is Amnesty International and then the Mine Action Canada. But first, Amnesty International, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Amnesty International would like to take this opportunity to make some comments and recommendations on the way forward for States on the issue of autonomous weapons systems. Amnesty welcomes the progress States have made at the CCW GGE on laws through discussions on the rolling text. We also appreciated the positive and robust engagement by a large number of States at the informal discussions in New York in May this year, which was a crucial opportunity to consider a number of critical elements related to autonomous weapons systems, including the importance of international human rights law considerations. It's now time for the work done in this forum and the substantive discussions held at the UNGA to pave the way for negotiations on a legally binding instrument regulating the development, production and use of autonomous weapons systems that will stand the test of time. We call on high contracting parties to take steps to launch this process without delay. We'd also like to take this opportunity to add our voice on two vital elements that have consistently been raised in this forum and elsewhere, and which we urge states in this room to keep on the table going forward. First, the targeting of people. If there is to be a red line in global consensus of what is and isn't permissible in the development and usage of autonomous weapon systems, then this must be it. Reducing humans to objects in order to kill or injure them on the basis of automated sensor-based systems would be inherently dehumanising and an affront to human dignity. Allowing machines to apply force to human targets using sensors undermines the fundamental legal principle of accountability. Machines must not be allowed to target and attack human beings. Amnesty International calls for a full prohibition of anti-personnel and autonomous weapons systems. We urge states to support this call here and during negotiations of a legally binding instrument. Secondly, and in many ways a related issue, the path of weapons from the battlefield to the hands of law enforcement, border and security forces is well trodden. It's inconceivable that deployment of autonomous weapons systems will remain limited to armed conflict environments. While settings outside armed conflict are currently outside the scope of what this group is considering, these must not be outside the scope of an eventual legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems. As the use in law enforcement contexts will inevitably involve the targeting of humans, autonomous weapons systems must not be used for law enforcement. Once again, Amnesty welcomes the efforts of those in this room who are working with urgency to make sure that the speed of development in autonomous weapons systems will be regulated by a robust and legally binding instrument. And we urge all states to do everything it takes to get us there as quickly as possible. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Amnesty International. And next on my list is Mine Action Canada. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As this is the first time Mines Action Canada is taking the floor, I'd like to thank you and your team for all the work and for your commitment to the inclusion of civil society in these discussions. Mines Action Canada, as a co-founder of Stop Killer Robots, has been following CCW laws discussions for over a decade. Collectively, we've made significant progress. But we agree with the joint statement delivered on behalf of 42 states that now is the time to formalize these discussions into negotiations on a new instrument of autonomous weapons. That is the way forward. Whether that path goes through CCW or another body, that is for you, the states, to decide. Now, I understand that taking the first steps along that path will require courage. So to help you be bold, I'd like to share some insights from the students we work with. For several years, Minds Action Canada has partnered with the Canadian Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Ethical Design Lab at the University of Ottawa to be a client for the introductory design course within the Faculty of Engineering, where students learn about project design and by solving engineering problems for their clients. For our classes, these problems highlight the danger of autonomous weapon systems. So from January till April of this year, these students were working in teams to repurpose commercial robots that were intended to be battle bots. These commercial robots came equipped with a gun style turret that can shoot pellets, and they're marketed towards students in a not so subtle attempt to normalize the weaponization of robotics. Once they were done repurposing their robots for peaceful uses, these students wrote manifestos from the perspective of the robot. The students were unanimously against the development and use of autonomous weapons, and they wanted clear legal guidelines as they start their careers in engineering. Kiefer, Badrea, Umed, Onyokowe, and Michael wrote that teaching students to program robots for warfare normalizes the idea that conflict can be mechanized, that killing can be automated, that war is just another system to optimize. But technology shapes us just as much as we shape it. And the more we design machines to hurt, the more we become comfortable with harm. David, Ryan, Liliana, Kirsten, and Christine say that meaningful human control is lost over time as the use of autonomous weapons gives too much power to the inanimate. No one is there to claim accountability for violence enabled, and yet the consequences remain. This cycle of violence would lead to nothing but human fear and distrust in technology. And finally, Mama Yasin, Haru Dai Partap, Zeneah, Phoenix, and Jeremy would like to remind you that the virtue of technology is not predetermined. It is in our hands. We must ask ourselves, will we continue down a path of digital dehumanization, or will we use technology to uplift and protect? I hope that you will take these words into consideration as you discuss the ways forward. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mines Action Canada for sharing these outcomes of this project. And then I'm looking at my list if there are any other further requests for the floor. I see one more plate. I could not... Ah, United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The UK would like to take this opportunity to echo the positive sentiments that we have heard about the rolling text that we have discussed this week, and to express how much the UK appreciates the progress that we have made both this week and throughout both sessions this year. Much of that is down to the hard work and preparation undertaken by you and your team, and the UK would like to express our continued support for the valuable work that this has facilitated. The UK would observe that while we have had some detailed and meaningful discussions over the rolling text, they have been absolutely necessary to progress the underlying work of ensuring that consensus is reached over an understanding of the scope and meaning of the terms and principles contained within the rolling text. This work is critical, not just in fulfilling our mandate, but in meaningfully setting the scene for further work in this GGE, addressing the actual implications of autonomous weapons systems and the best manner in which these implications might be addressed. Much of this progress is a result of the introduction of the rolling text and the instigation of the Friends of the Chair process, both of which have directly encouraged delegations to engage fully and deeply and has inspired the level of discussion that we have seen. Members of the UK delegation have been involved in this GGE since its inception, so we can say with direct experience that we have witnessed a significant step change in the level of discussion. The rolling text represents the best opportunity for this group to fulfil its mandate and to move forward using that as the basis for further discussions and deliberations. The UK looks forward to being a part of this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom for the statement and the kind words addressed to the Chair. Are there any further requests from the floor? If not, then I'm not going to repeat what I said earlier about the way ahead. I heard what you said. I would say what I have said, I have said. But I see there is one more request for the floor. The Russian Federation. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, distinguished Chair. Many colleagues have talked about some far perspective, far away in the future. something that perhaps awaits us if we work thoroughly and properly here in the Group of Governmental Experts. We would like to ask a question and raise an issue that is something that is not that far away, it's in the close perspective. about our work next year. We have two sessions in this group of governmental experts. The objective that we face is a very specific one, namely to prepare the final report of the group. And we have a relevant agenda item. And in this respect, we would like to find out and ask you, distinguished chairperson, and perhaps other colleagues could also express their views on this matter. When are we planning to start our work on the draft final report? Will that be done during our next session? or we will be devoting our very last session to carry out that work. We believe that it is very important for us to know about this in advance in order to prepare ourselves in the most effective manner and also plan our work here in the GGE appropriately. Today, colleagues have said many things about how important it is to come up with conclusions, recommendations, common understandings in connection with the different aspects of lethal autonomous weapons systems. We fully share that approach. But in light of our previous experience, in light of practice, in light of the way our discussions were held during this session, we believe that delegations need sufficient time to prepare the final report of the Group. In light of the very ambitious objective that we have and in light of the pretty big document that you submitted to us, and also in light of the many ideas that have been expressed by delegations. So I'll say it once again. We would like to have some clarifications about when do we plan or when do we intend to start the preparation of the final report of our group. How do you see that, Chair? Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for raising this question. Just before he came with this question, I referred to my earlier remarks in response to the remarks of several delegations. And in my earlier remarks, I said that in the first session in 2026, I think we should still continue to focus on discussions with regard to a new version of the rolling text, ensuring that the elaboration of a set of elements remains the primary substance substantive focus of our work, and that I am fully aware that the final report is to be adopted is is to be we have to adopt by consensus and has to be submitted to the seventh review conference of the CCW and that I foresee that this final report has as a substance this set of elements we are working on at this moment on the basis of the ruling text and that in my view the rest of the report is strictly procedural that would In my view, we call our mandate, who then present the elements, the set of elements for consideration by the high contracting parties at the seventh review conference. Nothing more, nothing less. And then of course, when to start with that, and that's always indeed, as you say, an issue. Let me also say that my experience over the years is that negotiations take as long as you have, and normally plus two, three, four, five, six hours into the very late hours or early hours of the next morning. I must say under the present circumstances that is not possible, because we will be kicked out of the building. somewhere between six and seven. So what I foresee is a lot of work on the substance between now and our next session in the intercessional period, as I already lined out. I will invest more time and more energy even than I have done so far, and it will also be a big pressure on the team. including on the, on the friends of the chair to make the next version of the rolling text the best possible, taking into account what you have been saying here in this room this week, presented then. Of course, we, we all know that on certain issues there is clearly not yet convergence. But we will work on proposals, if I may quote my predecessor, on looking for a landing zone to have text that is agreeable to everybody, because we need to achieve consensus, so that we have the substance ready. And that has, of course, to be put in the report, and that takes also time. And fine-tuning is, it takes always more time than we expect. And there will no doubt be a few issues that will not be solved until about this time in September next year, hopefully. And in the end, we are the ones who make it or break it. We had got a number of exhortations from high contracting parties, from NGOs, we have the outside world watching us, we have the Secretary General encouraging us, sometimes asking for us to do what's not even in the mandate. I'm clear about that. I'm focused on the mandate, so a set of elements of an instrument. And then we have a number of disclaimers, and I've not forgotten about them. That is what we're going to do, I think. And with your help and best efforts, I think we can do so. I'm a realist, and my definition of a realist is an optimist with experience. So let's try to make it happen. And of course, I will not wait with drafting then a draft report until just a week before we have our last session in 26. No. The coming time, the coming months, the year, we have a priority number one, and that is, of course, making progress on the substance, on the rolling text, containing the possible elements of an instrument, but at the same time, And I have started that already. I have consultations with delegations about what kind of a report, the form they are comfortable with. And we will work then in parallel for preparing that. But I do not consider it wise to already at the next meeting put that, put something on the table also. That will distract us. So I hope this is a sufficient answer to your question. And if there are other delegations that would like to react, that's of course possible. But on the other hand, I don't see also, I would try to refrain from having a general debate at the end of our meeting. We cancelled it at the beginning. But of course, I'm in the hands of delegations, so If there are other requests for the floor, I'm fully open to that. And I see Canada, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of my delegation, I would just like to express our sincere appreciation to you and your team for the excellent work and guidance provided throughout the week. Your efforts have helped ensure constructive and focused discussions, and we are encouraged by the progress that has been achieved. As mentioned in the Australian joint statement delivered on Monday, which we supported, we continue to believe that this group has done some great work and believe the CCW to be the appropriate area for these discussions. Furthermore, we echo the UK sentiments that there has been significant progress in advancing the rolling text this week, and we see it as the best mechanism in achieving our mandate. At the same time, we still recognize that some important work remains in order to fulfill the mandate entrusted to this group. In particular, further discussions will be required to deepen our shared understanding and to identify the key areas of convergence that can form the basis of our consensus outcome. On the report, we remain in your hands, Chair, and can continue to count on my delegation's full support. We remain committed to engaging constructively with all delegations as we continue this important progress under your able leadership. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Canada for the kind words addressed to the Chair and for stating the position of his delegation. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Australia. Madam, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, on Monday, Australia delivered a joint statement which encouraged delegations to make meaningful inroads at this session of the GGE so that we can deliver together a substantive consensus outcome next year. My delegation is pleased with the productive discussions held this week with many of you and all of us in this room, which have brought us closer to convergence and helped us build a shared understanding of key concepts. We would like to thank all delegations for their constructive participation, including civil society, who continue to help inform our discussions. We heard your comment that the text would be restructured. We look forward to reviewing the revised rolling text once issued, and thank you and your team for all of your efforts. Australia remains focused on working within this GGE to achieve consensus and working with other CCW High Contracting Parties and observers to contemplate next steps that will build on the progress made by this GGE. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Australia. And I see no further requests for the floor, then I would like to move on to agenda item seven, adopting of the report, and then I would like to remind you that the 2024 meeting of the high contracting parties recalled the decision of the 23. meeting of the High Contracting Parties that the Group should submit a report to the Seventh Review Conference, para 23 of the final report of that meeting, document CCW/MSP/2024/7. Therefore, we will not adopt a report this year, and consequently, we will not consider this agenda item during this meeting. However, as per the mandate of the 23 meeting of high contracting parties and as I indicated earlier, I will give an oral update to the 2025 meeting of the high contracting parties on the work of the group in November. Are there any requests for the floor on this? Then I would like to move to agenda item eight, closing of the meeting. Excellencies, dear colleagues. As we conclude this second formal session in 2025 of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, allow me to extend my sincere thanks to all delegations for the active participation, constructive spirit, and commitment you have once again demonstrated in pursuit of our shared mandate to consider and formulate by consensus a set of elements of an instrument without prejudging its nature. In my view, this week has been marked by meaningful progress. We undertook a full reading of the rolling text, which I believe brought us a substantive step forward. The detailed exchanges on the various boxes allow us to identify areas of convergence more clearly, to understand where divergences remain, and to consider concrete options for bridging them. In my view, this has greatly strengthened the foundation for our future work that lies ahead. We are still working on a number of very specific and complex issues. I am particularly encouraged by the discussions we had on Box 1, where we deepened our collective understanding of the characterization of laws, especially with regard to the critical functions of laws. But let me be honest also, we are not yet there. Some serious work needs still to be done. And when it comes to context-appropriate human judgment and control, following from our discussions this week, I think I will have to do some further thinking on how to develop a common understanding across the room. Although different options remain open, I do believe that a solution might lie in future work on especially Box 3, para 6, for which I have received numerous proposals from delegations that can help foster a common understanding of context-appropriate human judgment and control. This clearly means some further work in the weeks and months ahead. As said before, we also have to look at the text as a whole and also not to forget that it is about formulating a set of elements and not about negotiating an instrument itself. Coming back to my expectations ahead of this week, I realized once again that there are no easy fixes and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I do feel, however, that we also have power as even in the current version of the rolling text that are acceptable to many delegations. With only two formal sessions remaining before the seventh review conference in 2026, the urgency of our task is clear. We must continue to build on the momentum generated this week, and I encourage all delegations to maintain a spirit of compromise and creativity as sensed in the room, in particular yesterday and this morning. As I noted at the beginning of the week, we may not be crafting literary masterpieces, but what we are shaping is far more significant. An outcome that reflects the principles of international humanitarian law that underpin the CCW with a view to address the risks posed by laws. I wish to once again thank all delegation from both high contracting parties and observers for your constructive and dynamic engagement. I'm also grateful to the secretariat, conference service officers and interpreters, and the security officers for their dedicated support throughout this session. A special word of gratitude also to the members of my team and the friends of the Chair for their assistance both at this meeting and during the intersessional period. I look forward to continuing our work together in the months ahead. I wish you all a nice evening and a great weekend, and the meeting is now closed.