8th Meeting - 2nd Session Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems 2026 Meetings & Events Date: 3 September 2026 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k1j/k1jgb18wkv Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- Chair [0:02]: Excellencies, distinguished delegates, could I invite you to take your seats again? Thank you. Welcome back to the meeting. We have, for the time being, eight more requests for the floor. Let's see who else would like to take the floor for first impressions or perhaps even more than first impressions, before we then start with the para by para discussion, as I indicated this morning. First on my list is the Philippines, to be followed by Denmark and Cuba. But let me first pass the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines. You have the floor. Philippines [1:23]: Mr. Chair, we would like to echo the comments of other delegations and convey that upon preliminary reading, the latest draft of the set of elements represents a possible balance among different positions in this group. We regret the deletion of some parts of the text, especially of the previous paragraph 34, but we understand the rationale behind it and support the decision made. Nevertheless, we take interest in further discussion of the new additions to some sections of the text. We support further fine-tuning of the text as a package, which we understand to be not equivalent to diluting it. Our delegation will continue to cooperate and collaborate towards the finalization of the work of this group. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair [2:05]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines and now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Denmark to be followed by Cuba and Peru. But first, the distinguished representative of Denmark, you have the floor. Denmark [2:18]: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. And thank you for circulating this draft report. We appreciate all the hard work you and your team have put into finding a convergence between the many different positions that has been articulated in the room during the week. While there are still certain elements and minor details in the draft report that we feel could be improved, it is the view of my delegation that the text provides a coherent, balanced and well-structured consensus document. We appreciate that the recommendations in the draft report does not constitute binding treaty texts, but are intended to provide a set of elements of an instrument. and that we will have the possibility to adjust finer points at a later stage. In conclusion, Chair, my delegation can support the draft report as it is presented here. Thank you. Chair [3:05]: I thank the distinguished representative from Denmark. Next on my list is Cuba, to be followed by Peru and Ireland. I now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba. Cuba [3:20]: Thank you, Chairman. Just on time. As we say, it is better late than never. I have a couple of points. First, I thank you very much for your work and that of your delegation and the ISU. I do not think that any of the other delegations want to be in your shoes right now. We have taken note of the proposals that you have made. We think that we have a text that's pretty close to a balance, a consensus that we were hoping for. Nonetheless, there are some paras that we would like to continue working on. Generally speaking, we think taking steps backwards in this delegate balance that we have struck would be dangerous. We are rather troubled by eliminating paragraph 34, which, in addition to enjoying majority consensus in the room, also represented an important, broadly discussed section of the text. We are ready to continue working together with you with a view to reaching a text by tomorrow that reflects the priorities of delegations, but also the delegations on this topic, which is absolutely crucial when it comes to the theme of disarmament. Thank you. Chair [5:12]: I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba. Let's now move on to the distinguished representative of Peru, to be followed by Ireland and the United Arab Emirates. But first, the distinguished representative of Peru. Peru [5:29]: Chairman, Peru would like to thank you, your team, for the considerable efforts you've made. We think that the text that we have before us is a major step forward. It is a package that has been carefully balanced and that offers a robust basis for reaching consensus. Without prejudice to the discussions that will take place this afternoon, on paras 25, 34 and 37. We would like to state our firm support for a number of other elements of the text. We especially value the clear reaffirmation of the full applicability of international humanitarian law to laws. as well as the prohibitions contained in paras 31 to 33. We attribute particular importance to preserving provisions regarding legal reviews, including in the case of notifications or substantive modifications to existing systems. the prerequisites regarding reliability, predictability and traceability, as well as provisions tackling unintentional bias and the automation bias. We also support provisions on responsibility and accountability, especially recognition that accountability cannot be transferred to machines and that those systems should operate within a responsible chain of human control and command. We think that those are major achievements, and we urge delegations to maintain the substantive progress that has been made and the general balance that was reached in the text. Chair [7:57]: I thank the distinguished representative of Peru for reflecting on the text. Next on my list is Ireland, to be followed by the UAE and India. But first, the distinguished representative of Ireland, you have the floor. Ireland [8:11]: Thank you, Chair, and thanks to you and your team for all your work on what we think is overall a very solid draft final report. It is after lunch and there's more to do, so I'll keep remarks brief. As we read through, there are several areas we would like to see strengthened or retained, of course. although we are certain that all delegations feel that the draft is insufficient in some way or another. We see the logic in your approach and we think that we are nearly there. As Switzerland and others have said, we agree that there are some elements that we will need to assure ourselves of, but the text is carefully balanced and represents a solid basis for fulfilling our mandate, allowing us to take the next step in the process. I. Chair [8:49]: Thank the distinguished representative of Ireland. Let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates, to be followed by India and Sweden. But first, the UAE. United Arab Emirates [9:11]: Thank you, Chairman. The United Arab Emirates thanks you and your team for all your efforts. in achieving the results that we have before us and for taking into account all the positions expressed. We've listened with interest to the statements made by delegations this morning and we agree with that this text, it's not, the text maybe isn't perfect for everyone, nevertheless It has struck a balance and is a good basis for reaching consensus. We are in favour of the calls of Australia and others to preserve the delicate balance that has been reached in the text, as well as the position of Switzerland and other delegations with respect to focusing on the fact that the text should be reliable. Delegations have affirmed that amendments should be summarised or that strictly necessary modifications that are required to maintain the consensus should be summarised. We think that that We think that the text is a step forward, because it reconciles legal and operational considerations. The text has succeeded in taking into account several diverging positions. The wording might not reflect the first choice of all delegations, But the question is, though, is as follows. Can this text? Has it reached a balance and the content? Can it constitute? A point of convergence to help reach consensus. We think it's necessary to preserve the balance of the paragraphs. And to be. wary of making any further amendments. The United Arab Emirates believes that consensus would send an important message concerning the capacity of this group to tackle complex aspects of new technologies, thanks to multilateralism and collective work. We are ready to show the necessary flexibility and to work together with you and other delegations to reach consensus. Our top priority must be collective work to achieve positive results. Thank you. Chair [12:34]: I thank the distinguished representative of the UAE. Next on my list is India, to be followed by Sweden and Finland. Let me first pass the floor to the distinguished representative of India. Sri, you have the floor. India [12:48]: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and good afternoon, all colleagues. Mr. Chair, we wanted to register our first impressions about the text that you've shared, like others have done. And we want to, first of all, appreciate you for sharing with us the revised draft. We want to say that there is no doubt that this is a very promising text. We can also say that this is a step in the right direction. We have heard also words of affirmation in the morning session from various delegations about the text, and we acknowledge their sentiment. We also agree that the text, like others have underlined, must be logically coherent, legally accurate, and operationally sound. That remains the objective for the group as well as the objective of my delegation. Having said that, we also do believe that there is a need, scope for more work ahead. This work on most counts is about refining the text for legal accuracy and for logical coherence. In other cases, it is about making the measures operationally implementable. We also think that some elements require more work than the others, given that they have not received equal amount of attention. For instance, we did achieve some provisional understanding on human element. For example, paragraphs 34 to 36, we feel are in a good shape. We are also close to some sort of a provisional understanding on characterization. However, other measures underlined for instance, under paragraph 37 and risk mitigation measures would need more discussion, perhaps in an informal format, like we did for other elements. There is a need to also ensure that we use the right modal verbs such that it does not prejudice the nature of instrument. And lastly, Mr. Chair, we noted that there was a support in general regarding the concern that we've raised on the risk of diversion, including from the delegation of Armenia. We think that, given that there is no objection, we could work on that aspect, although my delegation is cognisant about the paucity of time. In conclusion, Mr. Chair, our delegation will work with you and your team. We thank you for your painstaking work. We understand that you are doing a very unenviable job, but we will engage constructively to achieve our shared objectives and to achieve a meaningful and substantive outcome of the group. Thank you. Chair [15:13]: Let me thank the distinguished representative of India for sharing the views of his delegation and reflecting on the revised draft report. Next on my list is Sweden, to be followed by Finland and New Zealand. But first, let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Sweden. You have the floor. Sweden [15:32]: Thank you, Chair. I want to join others in commending you and your team for all the efforts. We understand that the text before us represents a delicate balance after hard work and long discussions. We have not yet fully digested the details, but as an overall package, and if this can bring us to consensus, we could live with the text as presented by the Chair. It is important that the text does not undermine existing international law. I thank you. Chair [16:06]: I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden. And let me now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Finland, to be followed by New Zealand, China and Cameroon. But first, Finland. Finland [16:26]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your and your team's continuous efforts to help us reach consensus. As many delegations before have noted, the proposed compromise text is not perfect, but we see it as a coherent and well-balanced compromise. Finland considers it important that we are able to reach consensus tomorrow on the set of elements. My delegation is ready to support the draft report as it stands. Thank you. Chair [16:53]: I thank the distinguished representative of Finland. Let me now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand. You have the floor. New Zealand [17:02]: Thank you, Chair, and thanks to your team as well for the considerable work reflected in this revision. For us, there are elements within the text we would have preferred to be stronger or clearer. We do regret the deletion of paragraph 34. We thought there were still options we could have tried to capture the main substance of that article without it being overly prescriptive. Nevertheless, we recognise the hour is late and the careful balance you have sought to strike across the package. At this late stage, preserving that balance requires restraint and flexibility from all delegations. New Zealand is therefore open to supporting this text if it can hold as a package, and noting we have further discussions on some fundamental paragraphs this evening. Our willingness to accept this text reflects genuine compromise on our part, and we encourage the group to preserve this package and focus on achieving consensus and securing a meaningful way forward. Thank you, Chair. Chair [18:01]: I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand. And let me now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of China, to be followed by Cameroon, Pakistan, Norway, Bulgaria. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of China. China [18:22]: Thank you, sir. The Chinese delegation, like other delegations, appreciates the untiring efforts you have made in producing the draft. The new draft reflects the results of many rounds of consultations and is a compromise reached by various delegations. The topic of laws has undergone years of consultations. China sincerely hopes that the current session of the working group will reach a real outcome. During consultations, China has always displayed a constructive approach. and made concessions and proposed compromises regarding the key aspects of laws, regarding the salinity. So we have displayed our sincerity in pushing forward the negotiations. Meanwhile, as to the specific paragraphs in the report, China still has some concerns which are yet to be responded to. We are ready to meet each other halfway to make a joint effort for a draft that takes account of the legitimate concerns of all sides and culminates in a balanced text. Thank you, sir. Chair [20:19]: I thank the distinguished representative of China for stating the position of his delegation. Next on my list is Cameroon, to be followed by Pakistan. But let me now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Cameroon. Cameroon [20:34]: Thank you, Chair. Cameroon. I would like to echo people who took the floor before you to commend you, Sophie, for your efforts to bring together the diverging positions throughout our work. My delegation supports the new draft, which is more detailed in nature. It highlights a determination to frame laws within the context of IHL and strengthening human control and strengthening accountability and human responsibility. We have explicit responsibilities, and we as States are convinced that the future instrument should be sufficiently balanced, robust to meet the requirements of current technologies whilst remaining adaptable to future evolutions thereof. And this to, in order to avoid these innovations creating voids in protection for civilians afforded by international law in general, international humanitarian law in particular. and every other applicable legal framework. To conclude, we conclude that the current document can be a starting point for us to eventually adopt a document under CCW, which is the ideal framework to talk about laws. You can rely on the constructive engagement of my delegation to meet the objectives of your mandate. Thank you. Chair [22:12]: I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for stating the positions of his delegation and reacting to proposals. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Pakistan, to be followed by Norway, Bulgaria and Chile. But let me first hear the views of the distinguished representative of Pakistan. You have the floor, sir. Pakistan [22:34]: Thank you, Chair. Chair, I join others in thanking you and your team for the work that you have done in terms of presenting this draft forward. We also, in line with majority of the views that we have heard, we think that we have traveled a long distance when we especially look at the start of our work three years ago in terms of ambition, in terms of content that is there in this draft. And we do believe, like others, that we may have achieved a certain balance in the text in many places of this. At the same time, we think that there is some work required in perhaps very few areas in order to find a landing zone on them, and we would like to highlight, I think, Paragraph 35, for instance, is one such place. But, Chair, let me state it out that we are at that stage, as you have already said, we are not going to be voicing our preferences or what we would like to see just in the text. I think we are very well beyond that stage now. What we are trying to see is if we can find a compromise package that takes into account the views, the positions with which the delegations engaged on the text in the first place, and of course the legal accuracy, the expectations that everyone has from this process. And of course, we are also going to be cognizant of the fact that even though that we finish, we conclude this process tomorrow, Still, this is not going to be the end of the subject on which we will have discussions, and there will be a lot to discuss and negotiate on going forward as well. So with that premise, we would certainly encourage others as well to engage in the remaining time that we have during the course of today and tomorrow. to find that right balance in the text while taking into account the positions that we have been hearing in this room in multiple sessions from a vast majority of delegations. Thank you. Chair [24:52]: And I would like to thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan for reflecting on the text and stating the positions of his delegation. Next on my list is Norway, to be followed by Bulgaria. But first, the distinguished representative of Norway. Norway [25:08]: Thank you, chair, and thank you for this revised draft. It is clear that you have worked very hard to find the balance that can take us to consensus. With this text, we think that you have identified a possible landing zone, maybe the only landing zone that this GGE can realistically hope to find at this stage. We still see some bits of rubble that we need to clear away from the tarmac to ensure that we can safely land, but we are very close. Broadly speaking, this is a package that we think that we could be in a position to support. Having said that, it hardly reflects the ambitions that we took into this work, which is to elaborate elements that meaningfully address the concerns raised by the use of laws. That text, in our view, will have to be debugged and improved in a number of areas in the future work that we do. It has elements that we are not very comfortable with, but it also contains, importantly, a number of elements that we believe have value in that they give helpful direction to our efforts and our thinking as we start to develop the actual instrument in the future. After all, it is just a set of elements that is intended to provide a basis for that future work, and not the instrument itself. However, it is a razor-thin landing zone that you have found for us. If the text is weakened further, it will be hard for us to touch down. We still have some fine-tuning to do to ensure that the text can cross the finish line, including in the parts that will be discussed in the informals tonight. We are ready to work hard and to go to great lengths in the hours that remain to achieve that. Thank you. Chair [26:45]: I thank the distinguished representative of Norway for stating the position of his delegation. Let me now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Bulgaria. You have the floor. Bulgaria [26:57]: Thank you, Chair. In our view, the new version of the draft report is balanced and well calibrated. It reflects the convergence achieved over the course of this mandate and provides a solid and credible basis for a meaningful outcome. Bulgaria stands ready to support the draft as it is presented. We commend the spirit of compromise in which it has been prepared, and we therefore believe that it's time to preserve the text as it stands rather than weaken it, and to encourage all the delegations to seize the opportunity to bring our work to a successful conclusion. Thank you. Chair [27:38]: I thank the distinguished representative of Bulgaria for commenting on the text. Next on my list is the distinguished representative from Chile, to be followed by Ukraine. But first, the distinguished representative of Chile, you have the floor. Chile [27:53]: Thank you, Chair. First, may I thank you and your team and the Secretariat for how this process has been led, and thank all delegations for the work performed during these meetings. We note the proposals made and the efforts for accommodating them in this draft, we consider the text we have before us is as a whole sufficient to be adopted by consensus. We know that no country will be totally satisfied, but that's the nature of multilateralism. Consensus is not unanimity, it is building together, all of us, a common ground on which to work for the common good. This being said, We cannot fail to flag two causes of concern, like other delegations have done, which we would like to place on record. Number one, we are concerned about the fact that the provision of previous 34 on the prohibition to manufacture, et cetera, laws, which cannot be used pursuant to IGL, no longer is in the text. Two, we note that the explainability is not on a par with predictable, reliable and traceable as that hasn't been kept. And that is also a cause for concern for us. With these caveats and in the constructive spirit we've displayed throughout, Chile is ready to add to join the consensus to adopt this report. However, we'd like to recall, remind everyone here in this room that what we will be adopting, and I'm saying this positively, I want to be optimistic. It is a basis, not an arrival point. It is a starting point for a future discussion of this document, whose nature is still uncertain. We are convinced that this process will enable us to refine it, and when we expand upon it, we will do so. We need to preserve what has been achieved so far. We cannot afford setbacks any more. What we have built during these meetings must be the minimum standard. and not a benchmark which is eroded with eternal rounds of negotiation. Thank you. Chair [30:11]: I thank the distinguished representative of Chile for stating the position of her delegation. And next on my list now is Ukraine, to be followed by Germany, and then I have Nottingham University and Stop Killer Robots. But let me first hear the views of the distinguished representative of Ukraine. Sir, you have the floor. Ukraine [30:32]: The delegation of Ukraine joins the support expressed for the current text by multiple delegations. In the opinion of our delegation, the text presents a balanced measure of the possible agreement between us. With that, it is now time to prioritize the submission of the text to the Review Conference. Therefore. It is crucial to avoid unnecessary editing that can bring us to a new round of discussion on the merits. In line with this, the. Delegation of Ukraine will neither propose nor insist on any amendments, except for possibly minor editing at a later stage. However, it is our understanding that we can take it for granted that the. Principles of international humanitarian law mentioned in paragraphs 34 and 35 include the principles of humanity and military necessity. And that these principles form a minimal basis for future legal regulation of the laws. Thank you, Chair. Chair [31:37]: I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine for stating the position of his delegation and commenting on the text. Next on my list is the distinguished Ambassador of Germany. You have the floor. Germany · Ambassador [31:50]: Much, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, like others, we would like to thank you and your team for your hard work on the revised version of the final draft report, as well as for your tireless efforts to help us reach consensus. In our view, this revised version of the draft final report is a delicately balanced reflection of the interactive and constructive discussions we had over the last three years and the last three days. While there are some formulations we would have worded differently if we were to draft this on our own, here we would like to echo the comments of our colleagues from Australia and the Republic of Korea and many others that have displayed maximum flexibility. And I would like to appeal to all delegations to display the same degree of flexibility, being mindful of the very fragile nature of the balance in the text and keeping in mind, as we do, that our mandate is not to finalize an instrument, but to formulate elements of an instrument that certainly will be subject to further refinement. So if you ask us what keeps your delegation from joining consensus on this text at this stage, I could say nothing. However, Regarding the deletion of former paragraph 34 dealing with issues like manufacturing, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer, we deeply regret that no formulation could be found on this important paragraph to keep it in the final draft report. But in our view, this does not stand in the way of us joining consensus on the report. But we would like to put on record that we continue to consider these issues to be an integral part of the future negotiations of an instrument, even if not included in the report. Thank you very much. Chair [33:34]: I thank the distinguished Ambassador of Germany for stating the positions of his delegation and commenting on the text. And yes, your remarks have, of course, been duly recorded because we are in a formal session. This is also why I have started with a formal session to offer delegations that possibility. Next on my list is the Distinguished Representative of Nottingham University, to be followed by Stop Killer Robots, but first the Distinguished Representative of Nottingham University. Nottingham University [34:03]: Thank you, Chair, for providing the opportunity to consider the draft in its entirety. My observations and recommendations here are on the legal interpretation and consequences of section 3A of the final draft report as a whole, as it has been presented this morning. I will address four areas. Firstly, this GGE does not have the mandate to distort or undermine existing international humanitarian law and its ensuing state obligations, and yet we see this happening in the draft paragraphs. Paragraph 25 on the characterisation of laws, when read in conjunction with subparagraph b, distorts and undermines the principle of distinction. It prioritizes laws which cause death above laws which cause injury or damage or destruction to objects. This is factually and legally incorrect. A weapon or a weapon system can cause death or injury to persons or damage and destruction to objects. Under the principle of distinction, both civilian lives and civilian objects are protected under IHL, and there is no prioritization as to effects of a weapon or weapon system. Moreover, there is no requirement of "with force" under IHL in order to classify a weapon or a weapon system or to be protected from its effects. The principle of distinction applies to all weapons and weapon systems in relation to their effects on persons and objects. Subparagraph as it currently stands does not address the recognised effects of weapons under IHL for both persons and objects. I would therefore recommend removing the reference to with force in paragraph 25 and rephrasing subparagraph to: "A lethal autonomous weapons system may be capable of causing either injury or death to persons or damage or destruction to objects." The second area. What makes laws different from other weapons systems is the capability to act autonomously in critical functions without human intervention. The question then arises as to how you would control such a weapon system, which is why from the outset, the human element has been recognized as crucial in GGE's works. Yet, paragraphs 35 and 37A remove reference to human before control and remove human from responsible chain of command and control. I would therefore recommend adding human before control in paragraph 35, adding human before command and control in paragraph 37A, and this would also align with the requirement for human responsibility and accountability that is currently contained in paragraph 43, which does actually refer to, quote, "a responsible chain of human command and control." The third area, in paragraph 39C, it is unclear what is meant by adequately reliable manner, what is expected and the standard to which it is expected to be able to understand laws, their capabilities and their limitations. The ordering of terms such as reliable, predictable, traceable is not the correct sequencing for operationalisation. Removal of explainable also leaves incomplete operationalization of these terms. Definitions can be provided for traceability, reliability, predictability, and explainability to provide the clarity of meaning and application for laws. These are terms that are familiar to the technical and regulatory communities in the AI and robotics domains. They are expressed in legally binding instruments, soft law, and good practices. I would therefore recommend the following sequencing of terms and their definitions. Quote, "Traceability refers to recording, retaining, and reconstructing inputs, outputs, and behaviors of laws." close quote. Reliability refers to probability of correct function of laws and their anticipated effects. Predictability refers to reliably anticipating outputs, behavior, and performance of laws under foreseeable conditions of use. And explainability refers to understanding inputs, outputs, behavior, and performance of laws under foreseeable conditions of use. The fourth area is that the paragraphs are intended to contain prohibitions and regulation of laws. Since there are prohibited uses of laws contained in paragraphs 31 and 32, at a minimum, there should be a paragraph reflecting that States should refrain from manufacturing, acquiring, stockpiling or transferring laws that are prohibited in paragraphs 31 and 32. I thank you, Chair. Chair [39:36]: I thank the distinguished representative of Nottingham University. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Slovakia, Robert, to be followed by Sri Lanka. Stop Killer Robots [39:49]: Thank you, Chair. Stop Killer Robots would like to again express our appreciation for the efforts of you and your team to attempt to preserve the work of the group in the Cessate Elements text, whilst attempting to reach consensus. And in the context of discussions this week that have involved the reopening of issues that have already been discussed extensively, as well as last minute attempts to make fundamental changes after years of developing common understandings and making compromises. Overall, we believe that the text in section 3A of the revised draft you circulated this morning still preserves the main points of progress achieved by the group in terms of an adequate characterization of autonomous weapon systems and the elaboration of specific measures for exercising meaningful human control, as well as the core recognition that control and judgment are activities undertaken by people and that control is exercised by human beings. We would like to echo the comments of delegations who have observed that this text is not optimal for reasons we've outlined before, that it should represent only a minimum towards moving to the next step, and that the package as a whole must now be kept and built on. To briefly make some specific points, as we will not be present at the informals, Regarding paragraph 35 to 7, we're deeply concerned that the text could now be read as suggesting that the measures outlined in paragraph 37 and elsewhere in the document should be an optional menu of measures, rather than being a baseline set of ways in which human judgment and control can be achieved, among other measures, and which, when negotiated further and turned into legal rules, states must implement. Indeed, we imagine that that might be the intention of the changes for some. It is also concerning in that regard to see the words "as feasible" added to paragraph 36. Within the package as a whole, we also do not see why the concept of explainability has been removed from paragraph 39. Though we welcome that predictability, reliability and traceability have been retained, explainability has always been part of the package of measures that are essential to ensuring that systems are sufficiently functionally understood. At this point, when states undertake the next stage of their work of using their discussions on these elements as a baseline for negotiating a strong international legal instrument on autonomous weapons, They must ensure that all essential measures to ensure meaningful human control are obligations, not options; that systems that cannot be used in accordance with those measures for control are prohibited; and that anti-personnel autonomous weapons systems are also prohibited. Chair [42:40]: I thank the distinguished representative of Stop Killer Robots. And next on my list is the distinguished representative of Sri Lanka. You have the floor. Sri Lanka [42:54]: Thank you, Chair. We appreciate your efforts in presenting the revised version. We see this text as a minimum standards to move to the next step. Even though it is not the perfect solution, it represents an optimal result of compromise and lengthy deliberations we had over the years. We also understand your rationale behind the revisions. However, my delegation remains cautious regarding the deletion of the previous paragraph 34. Additionally, it is difficult for my delegation to agree to the inclusion of the phrase "as feasible" in the new paragraph 36, as it could be read as a qualifier for considering factors to exercise human judgment. Conditioning control on what is feasible under an operational context transforms an imperative legal duty into a discretionary operational preference. Therefore, we request you to revisit the language in paragraph 36, possibly by deleting the phrase "as feasible", which could otherwise risk legally validating unmonitored algorithmic executions as unfeasible in highly intensified military operations. Chair, we bring these comments at this stage as we see human judgment and control are central to govern, prohibit and restrict lethal autonomous weapons systems. Mr. Chair, my delegation is concerned about any further dilutions to the text, and we reserve our comments on certain revisions in the spirit of compromise and joining consensus. Chair, my delegation deeply value your hard work always and tireless efforts in this process. Thank you. Chair [44:48]: I thank the distinguished representative of Sri Lanka for commenting on the text and stating the position of her delegation. Next on my list is South Africa, to be followed by Greece. But now, first, let's hear the views of the distinguished representative of South Africa. South Africa [45:06]: Thank you, Chair. South Africa wishes to express its appreciation for the considerable efforts undertaken by the Chair in developing the draft report before us. While it is recognized that not all High Contracting Parties may be fully satisfied with every aspect of the text or the extent to which individual priorities are reflected, we believe that a spirit of compromise and necessary political will are essential if we are to achieve a meaningful and substantive outcome. It is through constructive engagement, flexibility and a shared commitment to progress that this process can ultimately reach a successful fulfilment of the GGE's mandate. In this regard, South Africa attaches particular importance to preserving the significant progress achieved by this Group over a number of years. The report reflects the cumulative outcome of extensive deliberations and careful negotiations and there is considerable value in maintaining language that has already been agreed or broadly negotiated. Preserving these hard-won understandings not only safeguards the advances made to date, but also provides a solid foundation upon which future work can continue to build. My delegation therefore supports an approach that protects and consolidates existing progress, which while enabling further substantive engagement on outstanding issues. I thank you, Chair. Chair [46:42]: I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa, and that's now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Greece. You have the floor. Greece [46:55]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we have said, our delegation would like to express its appreciation for your efforts to find common ground among the various positions expressed during our deliberations. Although we would have preferred to retain the reference to lethal force in paragraph 25, we recognize that the draft report should be considered as a package and assessed in its entirety. From this perspective, we believe that the overall balance of the text reflects a reasonable compromise and our delegation is therefore in a position to support the text in its existing form. Thank you. Chair [47:38]: I thank the distinguished representative of Greece for stating the position of his delegation. And he was the last on the list, so I think we can now move to discuss... Oh, sorry, I have one more request from the floor, from the distinguished representative of Colombia, and you have the floor. Colombia [47:58]: Thank you, Chair. I promise I'll be quick, and I know that I'm so far away. Colombia. We thank you and your team for the work carried out, especially for having heard delegations, listened to delegations who worked to take into account the various considerations that we have set forth, always bearing in mind the need to achieve a balanced document to be submitted to the next review conference. We see these elements as the starting point to continue our conversation in a future negotiation. We will be ready to hear the adjustments proposed by delegations to these texts so that it can be this text a solid legal basis, without forgetting the fundamental elements that need to be part thereof. Chair [48:50]: I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia for commenting on the text. And I have one more request from the floor, that's for the distinguished representative of Ecuador. You have the floor. Ecuador [49:03]: Mr. Chairman, Ecuador would like to voice its thanks to you and to your team for the efforts made to lead the deliberations of this group, and I would like to thank you for the presentation of this revised version of the draft final report. We recognise the complexity of the issues that we have tackled and the various perspectives that have been voiced by delegations, which is why we consider that the text that we have before us reflects a significant effort an effort to find a balance between those positions. That is a constructive basis for us to head towards consensus. Ecuador particularly values the fact that the draft preserves the application of international humanitarian law, the importance of the human judgment of control and the principles of responsibility and accountability. In our view, the instrument can be a sound basis for the continuation of our work. Without prejudging the actual nature of the future instrument, nor prejudging the outcome of the future discussions which will take place, at this stage Ecuador maintains a constructive attitude and remains ready to work with you and with the other delegations to preserve the balance achieved so far and contribute to an outcome achieved by consensus. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman. Chair [50:48]: I think this was the last request for the floor. Yes, under general remarks, first impressions. Let me thank you for sharing that. I think it's helpful. I think there's a bit of a common position around that, indeed, Now, nobody is perfectly satisfied, but I think this is now no longer a basis for further work. This is almost consensus. On the other hand, I'm careful because some of the remarks were almost positive closing remarks. I caution against that because there are still some cookies to crack. And we will be doing that the rest of the afternoon, the evening, tomorrow, and possibly also tomorrow evening. So we have to stay focused. We have to continue our work. And then I'm convinced it will not be perfect. Like what they always say about parliamentarians who draft laws, that laws in parliaments are not perfect, and diplomats trying to draft international law texts, probably there is something wrong with them also. They are certainly not perfect. The advantages that that leaves for scholars to write about and to remind us that we have further work to be done, that there is further work to be done, that has also been said by quite a number of you. This is not the end of the story. This is perhaps only the end of the beginning. But that is also not for this week. You can reflect on that next week under the able chairmanship of my colleague, Julianne Turney, during the PrepCom for the CCW Review Conference. And it's only at a review conference that that further path is decided upon by the High Contracting Parties. So that is where we stand now at this moment. Let me, for the time being, thank you for your constructive approach so far, your reaction to the text. Yes, the word balanced was used very, very often. That is, of course, what my team and I have been trying to do, listen carefully to you and then try to reflect that, try still to keep it coherent. And for that reason now, we go ahead. I think we go now to the discussion para by para, with a few exceptions, as I already said. That is the para 25 and the para 34 to 37 in the new counting, because, indeed, there was one para deleted, and many of you have already referred to that. So putting text on the screen? Yeah. That is. Yes, 26. So, shall we? Who would like to comment on para 26? Sorry, I have to get organised. I do not see any -- sorry, I do not see any other -- no requests for the floor anymore on this para. So, may I take it that there is general agreement on this para? Then we move on to the next, 27. I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. We have to. We try to fix it. One moment, please. This is probably to prepare us for the first committee when we have to push certain buttons and then things go wrong. So it's our collective nightmare always. Speaker 52 [57:36]: Somebody's coming. Russian Federation [57:44]: Thank you, distinguished Mr. Chairman. the new or old technologies. They can always be unreliable, but they do offer us the possibility to conduct the meeting of this group and to participate in it fully. On paragraph 27, our delegation recalls that this paragraph was rather broader than the wording that we have in the latest version of the draft report. In particular, in that paragraph, there was the ending, which read as follows: "and is consequently applicable regardless of the technology used". To our memory, that ending When we discussed it, no one was bothered by it. We thought that the whole paragraph as it was seemed acceptable to all states parties, and therefore we would like to ask you to restore that end bit and review paragraph 27 using the wording in the previous version of the draft report, with that tail end of that sentence included. Chair [59:21]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for sharing the position of his delegation. Are there any further views with regard to this para? I understand this was done at the request of another delegation. But if the Russian Federation insists on maintaining that, would that cause problems for that other delegation? I recognize the distinguished representative of the U.S. You have the floor. United States of America [1:00:29]: Thank you, Chair. We don't know if If we were that other delegation, it's hard to know without seeing the text on the screen. We'd listen carefully, but we're trying to make changes on our screens, but we're not quite sure what the proposal was. Chair [1:00:48]: The proposal was to reinstate the original or the text at the previous version, and that would add after future and is consequently, comma, applicable regardless of the technology used. United States of America [1:01:31]: Oh. Chair [1:01:42]: I recognize the distinguished representative of the U.S. You have the floor again. United States of America [1:01:50]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to respond to the comments, I think we did express a legal concern that some of the rules are applicable depending on the kind of technology used, like mines or incendiary weapons. you know, but, you know, trying to be as flexible as possible, we had proposed a different formulation for the last sentence, you know, so it would read, "and includes rules that are applicable regardless of the technology used to conduct the attack." You know, if that could be acceptable, I think we could certainly go with our previous proposal. you know, trying to be as flexible as possible. I guess I would we would request to conduct the attack regardless of the technology used to conduct the attack. And hopefully that could be acceptable to other delegations. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair [1:02:55]: Are there any further delegations wanted to take the floor on this? Let me pass the floor to the Russian delegation. Russian Federation [1:03:25]: Distinguished chairman, so as not to waste too much time, we would prefer to reflect in 27, if we could put it in brackets, the tail end that was in the previous ending, leave it. and then move forward and then we can return to it a bit later. And we'd also be great. We'd also be grateful to the delegation of the US if they could provide further clarification on this subject. Specifically, what is the reason exactly for deleting that ending To be honest, it is the first time that our delegation has heard from the US delegation that it does not like the tail end of that paragraph. No such objection was raised last time around. If we could get some clarity. Chair [1:04:31]: The US has the floor. United States of America [1:04:44]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think, again, we can accept a longer formulation at the end of that sentence. And the concern is one that we've raised in the last session and in previous sessions. Every time the subject of the technology neutral approach or technology neutral nature of IHL has come up, I think we've always raised the concern that some IHL rules are dependent on the technology used. And that includes the CCW protocols, which specify different rules based on the kinds of technology and mechanisms used in the particular weapons of concern for the protocol, such as mines or booby traps or incendiary weapons. However, the principle that certain IHL rules apply regardless of the technology used is found in the rules that are applicable to attacks. And this is in the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Article 59 for states parties to that instrument. It reflects that it is prohibited for the parties to the conflict to attack by any means whatsoever non-defended localities. So there is certainly an idea that certain rules, such as the rules applicable to attack, are applicable regardless of the technology used. And we would like to reflect that idea in the last clause by adding, regardless of the technology used to conduct the attack, period. So I hope that's a helpful explanation for colleagues. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair [1:06:34]: Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Brazil. You have the floor. Brazil [1:06:40]: Thank you, Chair. Not my intention to intervene on this particular subject. I just would like to offer a suggestion to perhaps avoid detailed and lengthy discussions on paragraphs that are not crucial, given the fact that we have very little time to complete discussion of the text or paragraphs of the draft report that we haven't even discussed yet. So just encourage you to perhaps try to steer us towards essential elements that are still remaining. Thank you. Chair [1:07:16]: I would say yes and no, because in the end, we have to agree everything. So this comes back at us at a moment in time. We have, of course, a kind of a special treatment for 25 and 34 to 37, and we will continue with that. And of course, if If it drags on too long, we will move on and revisit at a later stage. But I have two more requests for the floor and let's see what we can do then. It is first the Russian Federation to be followed by the ROK, but first it is the representative of the Russian Federation. Russian Federation [1:07:49]: Thank you, distinguished Chairman. We don't object to not going too deep into this discussion right now. We can leave the issue for further consideration. It might be worth for our delegation to discuss informally with the US delegation, if that is possible, to reach a compromise. However, the way that the US delegation reads that wording, we do not read it in the same way. We read that wording in such a way that IHL, in principle, applies to various kinds of means and methods of warfare, regardless of the technology used. It's talking about not how it's used, but the fact itself of its use. It does not depend on what technologies are used with regard to a given means and method of warfare. In that sense, we think that the wording is very appropriate. Yes, IHL is applicable to means and methods of warfare, regardless of what neutral technology is used for the purpose. How those norms and principles of IHL will be applied to a given form of weaponry will depend on what technology is used, but that does not change the fact that IHL will still be applicable to it. Thank you. Chair [1:09:47]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I have one more request for the floor, and then let's see what we do then. First, the distinguished representative of the ROK. Republic of Korea [1:10:02]: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. And my comment is more on practical side of how should we address these problems. I agree with our Brazilian colleague that we have limited time. And as the US and both US and Russian delegation pointed out, as we don't see that changes on the screen, it is very hard to follow. I understand the chair is not intended to go on a drafting exercise at this moment in the big room. But so if that's the case, maybe we can practice and go into the informant. discuss on the screen. So I think if everyone sees that little difference, what U.S. suggests and what Russia thinks, I think you can go easier, again, faster than this. Thank you. Chair [1:10:48]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea. And my intent was indeed to stop the discussion on, to park the discussion on 27 and to put the The text we had bracketed in the text, but for further discussion. So let me now move to para 28. May I take there is general agreement on this para? Then we move on to 29. Again, may I take that there is general agreement on this para? May we move to para 30? May I take that there is general agreement on this para? May we move on to para 31? I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [1:12:31]: Thank you, distinguished Chair. On 31, we still have serious concerns regarding the prohibitive language used in this paragraph using the wording, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use. We think that wording is not commensurate to the stylistics of a GGW report and requires, needs to be changed. What's more, we are in no way interested in changing the meaning or the sense of that paragraph. It's just a matter of the style. In that respect, instead of "it's prohibited in all circumstances to use", we would propose putting at the end of that paragraph "must not be used". I don't think that changes the meaning, but it improves the style of the paragraph. It makes it more acceptable for the nature and status of a report by the GGW. Thank you. Chair [1:13:52]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for stating its position and providing us with an explanation for that. Next on my list is the United States. You have the floor, sir. United States of America [1:14:06]: Thanks, Chair. We're fine in substance to it with this. Our only very minor question is whether we could change the "which" formulations in this sentence to the word "that." "That are inherently indiscriminate" or "that are otherwise incapable of being used." For American English, we think that's the right way to do it. And so that would be one minor suggestion. Thank you. Chair [1:14:44]: I see no reaction from our UK or Irish colleagues with regard to the "that." So that then remains the proposal by the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation to "not use" is prohibited, but "to use" must not be used. I concur. that this would not substantially change. It's indeed a stylistic one. But I see two requests for the floor. Let me first pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Norway, to be followed by India. Norway [1:15:33]: Thank you, Chair. I can be very brief. I mean, we've touched upon this many times. Our point is just that you know, the two-tier approach that many want here is best reflected through the word prohibition, although, as I said the other day, that the sort of deontic proposition contained in those two versions is more or less the same. And on stylistics, I mean, this GGE report is something special because this time we're asked to provide elements for a future instrument And such an element, in our opinion, should be a prohibition, a clear prohibition like this. So we would very much like to retain the word "prohibition." Thank you. Chair [1:16:12]: I thank the distinguished representative of Norway for stating the position of his delegation on this issue. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of India, to be followed by Switzerland. You have the floor, sir. India [1:16:26]: Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have a very short remark. And that applies to para 31 to 33. The general point we want to make is that this language could be better aligned with the basic rules and rules governing attacks in IHL for states parties that are signatories to Additional Protocol. In that vein, we would suggest, like the Russian delegation has done, the removal of the word "in all circumstances" in para 31. And we also sympathize with the Russian edit on using the formulation must not be used. But my delegation would be flexible. Thank you. Chair [1:17:11]: I thank the distinguished representative of India. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Switzerland, to be followed by Cuba. Switzerland [1:17:22]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As our colleague from Norway just said, it follows the the two-tier approach that is very dear to us. The wording that we see in front of us also follows and translates the preambular principle of the CCW, which clearly mentions the principle that prohibits the employment of weapons, projectiles, materials, et cetera, that are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. So, we very much would keep that language as we have it in the CCW preamble and other protocols. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair [1:18:15]: I thank the distinguished representative of India for stating the position of his delegation. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Switzerland, to be followed by Cuba. So, sorry, sorry, we had Switzerland. I do apologize. We had India with Switzerland, and now we have Cuba. Sorry. Cuba [1:18:37]: Gracias. Thank you, Chair. Very quickly, I won't repeat what's already been said by Switzerland and Norway with respect to the approach, the dual approach to prohibition and restriction. We think there's a need to preserve the text as is. I want to refer to our previous statement with respect to the danger, possibly, of any further steps backwards. That is one of the themes where we would not be able to accept language that would in any way dilute the prohibition or would leave it explicit in the text. Since we are outlining elements for a future instrument or for tackling the question of laws, this is one of the most crucial themes that we should not in any way eliminate or play down. Chair [1:19:38]: I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba. Next on my list is Austria, to be followed by Panama, Peru, Ireland and New Zealand. I pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria. Austria [1:19:52]: Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. I can be very brief. Very much support interventions by Norway, Switzerland, Cuba. We also are very attached to a two-tier approach, and in fact, the wording that you have in the text on prohibition to us seems to reflect it more correctly. And as Switzerland rightly pointed out, it also reflects the text of the CCW. So to us, that seems to be the correct way to reflect it and to frame it. Thank you. Chair [1:20:18]: I thank the distinguished representative of Austria. Let's now hear the views of the distinguished representative of Panama. Panama [1:20:27]: Thank you very much, Chairman. My delegation shares the statement made by Norway, Switzerland, Cuba and Austria that the paragraph should be kept as drafted, not just because it reflects the two-tier approach, as mentioned, by previous speakers, because it also reflects language from the convention preamble. The very title of the convention gives that two-tier approach when it comes to prohibition. We would prefer to keep that consistency with the convention in the framework in which we are drafting the text. Thank you. Chair [1:21:16]: I thank the distinguished representative of Panama. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Peru, to be followed by Ireland and New Zealand, but first Peru. Peru [1:21:30]: Thank you, Chair. My delegation would also like to voice its position on the significant paragraph 31. and ask that we keep the language and the architecture, this prohibition architecture enshrined in 31, 32, 33, in these three. There is a merit for us keeping this very wording in the three paragraphs. This was eloquently voiced by Switzerland, Norway, Cuba, Australia, and Panama, Austria, and Panama. We would like to keep that, therefore. Furthermore, we believe that it affects the two-tiered approach, which we have preserved throughout. Chair [1:22:31]: Let me thank the distinguished representative of Peru. I think we run the risk that we get 41 statements now. And I think we have to be cognizant of the time we have and we don't have. So it's clearly, and I assume that the Russian Federation remains at this position. Yes. Okay, then I'm going to freeze this. And the same goes then for the following two paras. So I will seek the views from delegations on those paras, but there's no need to comment on the opening few words because then we are going to have a repetition and that would just be a memory test. So please, I invite you to come with remarks with regard to 32, but refrain from commenting on the beginning. Thank you. I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Russian Federation [1:23:41]: Thank you, distinguished Chair. Besides similar proposals that you've just mentioned for paragraph 32 and 33, for 32, we're going to have another proposal. Through a number of sessions, we have proposed considering the possibility of supplementing paragraph 32 by adding to it wording the understanding of which was agreed back in 2019 and is contained in the 2019 group report in paragraph 23A. We've repeatedly read it out. If necessary, we can read it out again. It reads as follows. During the design, development, testing, and deployment of laws, the risks in Terele of civilian casualties, as well as precautions to help minimize the risk of incidental loss of life, injuries to civilians and damage to civilian objects must be considered. Full stop. Other types of risks should be considered, as appropriate, including but not limited to the risk of unintended engagements, risk of loss of control of the system, risk of proliferation, and risk of acquisition by terrorist groups. Now, our glad. We think that that addition would be very important in mitigating possible risks at various stages of the life cycle of such weapons systems. What is more, such wording was already agreed by consensus in 2019, and we do not see any problem adding that wording to paragraph 32. During the previous discussion, we did not hear any particular objections with respect to the paragraph 23A from the 2019 GGW report. Chair [1:26:30]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for making a proposal. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of the U.S. United States of America [1:26:44]: Thanks, Chair, for giving us the floor. I think I might just make comments on both 32 and 33 since they're similar. I think it's important for us just to register that we have consistently raised some concerns, technical concerns with both 32 and 33, and we continue to have those concerns. I know we don't probably want to spend a lot of time right this moment, but just to mark that to the extent that we're working with these concepts, I think we would have some significant editorial suggestions for both paragraphs. On the general thought offered by the Russian Federation of looking back to previously agreed language, I do think as a general proposition, we are covering elements in 32 and 33 that have been previously addressed, and so understanding what was insufficient about previous language would also be helpful. And the last point I would make about 32 and 33 is really they are also overlapping with both 31 and 34. And so to the extent that we're trying to get out a lot of these issues, they are issues that are swept in by both of those paragraphs. Thank you. Chair [1:28:02]: I thank the distinguished representative of the United States for sharing the views of his delegation. Are there any other views in the room? Since we now have a more or less totally new proposal and the US also proposes to have rather drastic changes to both 32 and 33, I propose that we park these two paras and move on to The next para, the new 34. I'm a little bit too, sorry, I'm now going contrary to my own intentions earlier. 34 to 37, I will still with the old numbering in my head. We have parked, of course, for further informal discussions. So we get 38. I recognize the distinguished representative of the U.S. United States of America [1:30:27]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just on 38, appreciated the developments and the inclusion of new, so really appreciated that adjustment in the text. I think for us, you know, we still have concerns with the chapeau and the must, and I think one solution that occurred to us was simply to delete the must, and it would be states in accordance with their legal obligations, so that could then convey the sense of different obligations for different states that have them. So we thought that was potentially a surgical way out of addressing the issue and concern that we had So just did want to offer that proposal with regard to the chapeau. I think we would have some very minor technical suggestions with regard to 38A that I won't go through, but with their very technical adjustments. And then did have continued, as we've explained in previous meetings, you know, did continue to have concerns with 38B and cannot accept it. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair [1:31:41]: I thank the distinguished representative of the United States. So if I understand him correctly, he would like to delete "must" in this chapeau and then has some minor issues with 38A and objects to 38B. I have two more requests for the floor. Let me now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey. Türkiye [1:32:13]: Thank you, Chair. As I did not take the floor when others made general remarks, allow me to start with some broader observations. My delegation has reviewed the revised draft report circulated today. This text is now under consideration in our capital, and I reserve the right to come back with additional remarks. Now I'll share some preliminary views. We're glad to see progress in several places, and we thank you for taking on board some of our suggestions. We're definitely moving in the right direction. We appreciate your relentless efforts to bridge significant differences. Rest assured, they're not lost on our delegation. We will keep our remarks focused on what remains outstanding or has moved in the wrong direction. Chair, as you know, paragraphs 45 and 46 are critical for my delegation. We will get back to you on the new formulations therein and elsewhere after we finalize their legal review in our capital. In the meantime, you will support your efforts to reach consensus by Friday afternoon, preferably. Now moving to 38. Paragraph 38 still requires States to conduct legal reviews in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of laws, language drawn directly from Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. As we're not party to that protocol, we cannot accept treaty-specific language in a set of elements reflecting common understanding among all States. We reiterate our request that this phrase be deleted. This request carries additional weight today because the chapeau of paragraph 38 has also lost the qualifier "as appropriate", which previously preceded "States must". It was precisely that qualifier that allowed my delegation to work with "must" in this paragraph at all. Without it, we're left with an unconditional obligation, phrased in language drawn from an instrument we have not joined. So, we ask at a minimum that as appropriate be restored and that phrase drawn from Article 36 be deleted. The phrase as appropriate could be reinserted in sub-paragraph 38 after conduct legal reviews. So, the beginning of the sub-paragraph would read as conduct legal reviews as appropriate. Thank you. Chair [1:34:30]: I thank the distinguished representative of Turkey for sharing the views of her delegation. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, to be followed by the UK. But first, the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [1:34:48]: Thank you, distinguished Chairman. With respect to 38, we still have our prior concerns. and reservations regarding sub-paragraph. We still think that paragraph is redundant, and we suggest deleting it in full. Thank you. Chair [1:35:13]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Let's now move on to the distinguished representative of the UK, to be followed by Panama. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:35:23]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just looking at the wording of paragraphs 38 and 38, it is clear that paragraph 38 still has some problems in the way that the wording is presented. In paragraph 38, it is suggested that the modification is being reviewed for compliance with IHL, as opposed to the impact of the modification on the system's ability to be used for compliance with IHL. It is also clear that the preceding subparagraph reflects article 36 language in relation to employment and whether this would be prohibited by international law. And yet again, there's an inconsistency between the two paragraphs with subparagraph B specifically looking at the modifications ability to be used in IHL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair [1:36:13]: I thank the distinguished representative of the UK for sharing the views of her delegation and making also looking at the paragraphs in conjunction. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Panama, to be followed by India. Panama [1:36:32]: Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman. On this paragraph, having heard the comments of other delegations, I think that you've done a titanic effort to achieve a balance in the chapeau and in the subparagraphs. Now we've heard the argument that if the obligations to carry out legal reviews and this issue of ratification or non-ratification of the protocol, additional protocol, one or not, well, the way the Chapeau is drafted, under their obligations under applicable international law, I think that covers it. We, therefore, believe this should be kept as it is drafted and we should keep the verb "must" at the end of the chapeau. Thank you. Chair [1:37:35]: I thank the distinguished representative of Panama. And now, Mr. Flore, to the distinguished representative of India. You have the floor, sir. India [1:37:46]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We just wanted to thank you for the the change that you've made in chapeau para 38. I think it clarifies clearly the differential obligations that states have under international law, and it is good enough, but we want to make one minor edit that will clarify this further. We would like to insert the word "existing" before the word "obligations." So with that edit, the chapeau would look as follows. in accordance with their existing obligations under applicable international law, states must. That will be it from our side. Thank you. Chair [1:38:31]: I thank the distinguished representative of India for commenting on the text and making proposals. Let me just reflect a moment. I think we will have to park these discussions on 38, chapeau, and alpha and bravo in the light of the objections raised by delegations, but also in the light of proposals made by one delegation. So we will have a look at it. And we would appreciate also receiving the ideas from the US with regard to changing the text. I have a request from the distinguished representative of Brazil. You have the floor. Brazil [1:40:42]: Chair, very briefly, I, of course, support the objective of moving the discussion along. I would just like to, while reinforcing our previous point about the importance of this paragraph, would like to recall that alternative language for B has been suggested previously by the US delegation, which might provide a way forward. I will not restate the proposal, leave it to the US delegation to do so if they so choose. I just note that there might be a an advantage to referring to possible substantial changes to the circumstances in which laws can be lawfully used. That might offer a way forward on this paragraph, which, again, our delegation believes is absolutely central. Thank you. Chair [1:41:42]: I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for further reflecting on the text and reminding us of earlier proposals. I think we will act as I just proposed and indeed look at that proposal, whether that could be a way out. So let's now move to power 39. I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [1:42:23]: Thank you, distinguished Chairman. On 39, we have a proposal for subpara A. This wording looks, as of today, it looks rather... The wording seems rather complex. a bit heavy. It's a bit difficult to understand what exactly stands behind this wording. We think it needs to be shortened somewhat. We would propose delegations consider the following wording. Testing, conducting testing and evaluation to assess the loss performance, including within realistic simulations in the expected operational environments. I can repeat if you like. conducting testing and evaluation to assess the loss performance, including within realistic simulations in the expected operational environments. We think in that event the wording would then be very, would be clear. What's more, it would retain all the elements already there. in the wording that you proposed. Thank you. Chair [1:44:12]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for making a proposal. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of the U.S. You have the floor, sir. United States of America [1:44:28]: Thank you, Chair. I know you didn't invite this, but just to be efficient, there are some aspects have paragraph 39 that raise concerns that are very similar to some concerns we see in 40 and 41. So I thought it might be easier just to present the general concern without the need to come back over and over again. So just as a general proposition, I think the key question that we have with 39, 40, and 41, we are comfortable working with most of these concepts, but they now lack a clear nexus showing the purpose for which we are doing these kinds of measures. And just as an example, so the chapeau of 39, which focuses on the need to ensure that capabilities can be understood, as I said, we are willing to work with this, but we would like to see this, the purpose of understood as serving a broader need to promote compliance with IHL. I mean, the purpose of this idea and the purpose of really these measures in 39, 40, and 41 are to ensure compliance with IHL. And we think there's probably an easy drafting way to kind of get at that idea for these three paragraphs. And so we would like to reserve on these three and would hope to be able to work with everyone in the room to try to develop that closer nexus. With respect to paragraph 39C, we do have a more fundamental concern share with that particular subparagraph, which we've raised in the past, in particular with some of the terminology there. So I think on that one, Our preference would be to delete it. If we're going to try to work with these concepts, which we're willing to do, we do anticipate that this will require quite a bit more work. Thank you. Chair [1:46:47]: I'd like the distinguished representative of the U.S. to share the positions of his delegation with regard to the paragraphs 39, 40, 41. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Turkey. You have the floor. Türkiye [1:47:08]: Thank you, Chair. On sub-paragraph 39, we welcome reinsertion of the qualifier "adequately" before "reliable". But as the word "predictable" has now moved to the second part of the sentence, our concern about how we qualify predictability remains. As I underlined a few days ago, absolute predictability is not a realistic technical standard for learning systems. And this formulation read literally could be understood as requiring a guarantee that cannot be given for any complex system, human operator or otherwise. So we ask that either the word adequately or an equivalent qualifier such as reasonably, sufficiently, or to the extent feasible be added to the second part of the sentence that talks about predictability. Thank you. Chair [1:48:06]: I thank the distinguished representative of Turkey for making comments and proposals with regard to the text. I have two more requests for the floor, Israel and Pakistan. Let's move to the distinguished representative of Israel. You have the floor. Israel [1:48:26]: Thank you so much, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues. I will be brief. Regarding paragraph 13, sorry, 13C, as we previously mentioned, we continue to have serious concerns with the elements appearing in this paragraph, and especially with the reference to "traceable." It remains unclear what precise standards these terms establish or how they relate to compliance with IHL. We will therefore support the US proposal in this regard to delete that subpart. Thank you. Chair [1:49:06]: I thank the distinguished representative of Israel. Next on my list is Pakistan, to be followed by Ireland. But let me first hear the views of the distinguished representative of Pakistan. Pakistan [1:49:22]: Thank you, Chair. Chair, on this paragraph, and also a comment on the previous paragraphs on which we did not take the floor. Very briefly, I think there's a very fine balance on the paragraphs that are there, and we certainly would discourage against any significant modifications to the language that you and your team have very carefully drafted in those paragraphs. But of course, we remain ready to work on some of the fundamental issues that different delegations have been raising. We need to, of course, stay true to the mandate, also take into account the examples of our conventions that we have been asked to do so according to our mandate. Now, on particularly, for instance, on paragraph 39, 40 and 41, Chair, we We remain open to the idea of linking them closely to the true purpose, ensuring compliance with IHL. In fact, this is something that we are advocating in the case of paragraph 35 as well, on which we are going to have discussions later on, on this. So, we think that that's something that can be looked at. We regret that in paragraph 39C, we have lost the concept of explainability. However, we would strongly support retention of the concepts predictable and traceable. We are open to considering any qualifiers. We are not seeking absolute predictability. We certainly agree that this is something that cannot be achieved, but it's important that the system needs to be predictable if its behavior is to be anticipated and the effects are to be anticipated. Also, the concept of traceability is very much linked with the accountability that appears later on in the text, and we fail to see how accountability can be ensured without the notion of traceability. Therefore, we can work on the language. on how to address the concerns of different delegations and some work, as you've said, would be required in that. But we would like to put that position on the record on these paragraphs. Thank you very much. Chair [1:51:55]: I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan for commenting on the text. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Ireland, to be followed by Panama and Austria. But first, The distinguished representative of Ireland. Ireland [1:52:15]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding tying these paragraphs to broader objectives, as the colleague from the US has suggested, we think that could be useful and we would be happy to look at some possible language suggestions there. However, we would not be comfortable with the wholesale deletion of the important concepts contained in 39C that have received broad support. We'd prefer to have them retained in some way. as Pakistan has just mentioned now, we think there can be perhaps some language solutions here. For us, it's important that these concepts are retained in some capacity for our successors to be able to carry them forward. And, Chair, while I have the floor, I also want to note that we were sad to see the previous paragraph 34 go on manufacturing, otherwise acquiring, stockpiling, or transferring. This was an important element for any effective future regulatory instrument and should be included in any set of elements. But as these elements are, in our view, non-exhaustive, we can go with it on the understanding that it can be introduced at a future stage. And this goes, of course, for many other concepts. Thank you. Chair [1:53:26]: I thank the distinguished representative of Ireland. Next on my list is the distinguished representative from Panama, to be followed by Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Peru, Brazil, China. But first, we hear the distinguished representative of Panama. Madam, you have the floor. Panama [1:53:48]: Thank you, Chairman. First, a general comment. We're close in 25 hours we will be finishing the work of this GGE. With that, I want to say that my delegation does not agree at this point of the discussion, trying to delete paragraphs from the text, when it is very clear that both you and your team have gone to sterling efforts to try to reach a balance and to give us a compromise solution. It is also a collective effort. Good political will has been needed to reach that consensus. I state that we are not in agreement to deleting anything from the text. With respect to paragraph 39, in principle, we could support it as drafted, and we share the comments made by Pakistan. With respect to sub-paragraph c, my delegation has taken due note of your explanation with respect to deleting the concept of explicability, which we would not like to reinstate. However, we think that it is important to preserve the notions of predictable and traceable, on which there is significant consensus in the chamber. Thank you. Chair [1:55:32]: I thank the distinguished representative of Panama. Next on my list is Austria, to be followed by Switzerland. But let me now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria. Austria [1:55:45]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving us the floor here. As a general remark, we would like to express a bit of concern on the suggestion of outright deletions of paragraphs. We have alluded to this earlier this morning that this text is a good basis for us, but it's also minimum basis. So outright deletions raise great concern for us, especially when they are referring to two concepts that are of great importance to a number of delegations, and we have discussed several times already. So with regard to 39C of maintaining the notions of predictability and traceability, we do agree that it is regrettable that we've lost "explainable" here. However, in terms of predictability and traceability, we are ready to work on the language and see how we can move forward on this. Similarly to 40 and 41, we are not closing ourselves off to finding different language solutions that would keep the concepts but might help other delegations to move forward with the text. I thank you. Chair [1:57:06]: I thank the distinguished representative of Austria for stating the position of her delegation with regard to the elections. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Switzerland, to be followed by Belgium, Peru, Brazil. But first, Switzerland, you have the floor. Switzerland [1:57:25]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving us the floor again. We would like to react to a couple of comments that we heard on different paragraphs, but first on paragraph 39, we are also highly in favor of keeping the language as is. We wonder how can you comply with international law, IHL, if you cannot predict and anticipate the effects of the systems you want to use. for instance, to assess collateral damage, et cetera. We are open to study language that would tie this and other articles, if I understood correctly, closer to compliance. However, as this is should, the expression should also shows that we should also be capable of moving beyond IHL if we see that the measures that we identify here are useful for other purposes and not just compliance. With your indulgence, I will also come back to the paragraph on legal reviews. In that regard, we also recall the adoption of guiding principle E in 2019. and the language contained in there, and we are open to study the proposal of the US delegation on the chapeau in this regard, but we would highly advocate to not dilute the language that we adopted in 2019 in this regard. And as a general comment on these paragraphs, we think, and as we already said earlier, the text strikes a careful balance, you managed, to capture the big discussions we had on these paragraphs in a delicate manner. And it's important for us to keep it as much as possible. Of course, we're open for minor tweaks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair [1:59:51]: Let me thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland for sharing the views of his delegation and commenting on our work. Next on my list is Belgium, to be followed by Peru and Brazil. But let me first pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium. Belgium [2:00:11]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Very quick from our side to bring our support to the interventions of Pakistan, Ireland, Panama, Austria, and Switzerland in keeping this para as it is, even if we can work on some minor qualifiers. Thank you very much. Chair [2:00:27]: I thank the distinguished representative from Belgium. Next on my list is Peru, to be followed by Brazil and China. But let's first hear the views of our distinguished colleague from Peru. You have the floor. Gracias. Peru [2:00:42]: Thank you, Chair. Very quickly, we'd like to join a line with those who believe that the 39C as is already reflects a compromise. Therefore, in addition to being in favour of keeping it, we would maintain the references to reliability, predictable and traceable. We also regret that this version has eliminated the word "explicable", which I think would have been important to keep. As has been said by other delegations, it contains components that align with elements of accountability related to laws. If we are discussing the possibility of deleting some of those elements, we would be in favour of reintroducing the concept of explainable. Thank you. Chair [2:02:02]: Yes, I have now still one, two, three, four, five, six more requests for the floor. And may I assume that nobody comes with a magic solution for it? So then I'm also to park this one and we move on. It's clear that this needs further work. So we are now... Yeah, that means, I say, this one that was, of course, 39, only the US has commented on the following para. So let me now open the floor for comments on para 40. Yeah, yep, yes. So any views on para 40? I recognise the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. You have the floor. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:03:26]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This comment is on paragraphs 40 and 41, in terms of the use of the term "feasible" in those paragraphs. The UK sees the potential for the word "feasible" to change the meaning of those paragraphs, and we just wanted to see whether the group or your team could reflect on that. "Mitigate as far as possible", which was the previous formulation, is different in emphasis. The meaning of "feasibility" could, in fact, refer to the feasibility of the measures preventing and mitigating. There might not be a meaningful practical effect of this difference, but it does not read as strongly as prevent or mitigate as far as feasible or as far as possible. Our suggestion is that we reflect on whether, in both proposals 40 and 41, the intent of the qualifier to mitigate has been realised by the current drafting. Chair [2:04:27]: I thank the distinguished representative of the UK for making that proposal. I also Remembering quite a number of remarks earlier already on this, when we had general remarks on the text, let me invite other delegations to comment. And let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland. You have the floor. Switzerland [2:05:00]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, we had a similar question mark and concern as the UK just raised with regard to as feasible in paragraphs 40 and 41. We are concerned that the term may create too much flexibility with regard to preventing and mitigating unintended bias in laws and perhaps reverting to the language the UK just said, or something along the lines, states should implement feasible measures would already, in our review, change the focus back to where it should be and would better reflect what we think is an important measure also to ensure compliance with international law and IHL. Chair [2:06:18]: Any further remarks with regard to 40? Yes, let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium. You have the floor. Belgium [2:06:35]: Thank you very much. Just like the UK and Switzerland, we also think the previous language was more adequate and we would like to see it reinstated. Thank you very much. Chair [2:06:45]: Thank you for that. And I have now the distinguished representative of Norway. You have the floor. Norway [2:07:02]: Thank you, Chair. I think I can be very brief. I mean, we struggle a bit to understand what kind of work that word feasible does here compared to what was there before. I mean, this is a sort of should paragraph. States should implement. So I think, you know, the concerns of those who've suggested feasible being included here should be, you know, catered to already by the fact that this is an encouragement. not an obligation. Also, I think that the text, the way it reads without this feasibility or as feasible there, but with the previous formulation as much as possible, makes it very clear that you're not required to do the impossible here. Thank you. Chair [2:07:48]: Good. Having listened to the floor, my proposal would be to move back then to as much as possible. But we have also the earlier remarks from the US with regard to paras 40 and 41, I think, and they announced... Oh, yeah, that was with regard to the need for a clear nexus with a purpose. I think it would help to have perhaps a brief idea what that would then be for delegations. No doubt we will not be able to get general agreement on it, but it would help, I think, for delegations to have an idea what you would like to see here, then they can reflect on that later tonight. And I see already the distinguished representative of the USA. You have the floor. United States of America [2:09:01]: Thanks, Chair. So I guess we're at the stage where we're previewing our late night conversations. But my sense is that we did not want as far as possible here. I know we've been a cheerleader for feasible, but actually, we don't need that here either. I think our proposal would be we don't like as far as possible. We don't think we need as feasible just to delete as feasible in both 40 and 41 and leave it without the as far as possible. That leaves the clear, you know, focus on what it is states are doing without -- on this one, we don't think we need a qualifier either way, but we have a problem with as far as possible. Thank you. Chair [2:09:47]: So that would concur with an earlier remark by one of the delegations pointing out that we have shoot already. The chairs in the hands of delegations. If we can get rid of this qualifier, I'm happy to do so because of the shoot in Asia. But I see already the UK, you have the floor. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:10:13]: Thank you. The UK would agree with that as a statement. We do not think that the qualifier in this particular context is particularly useful, and so we would be happy for it to. Chair [2:10:26]: Go. As far as I am concerned, it is now out of the window. I recognise the distinguished representative of the US. United States of America [2:10:44]: Sorry, Chair, just a clarification. I understood you to be asking us for just the narrow -- a question on the narrow issue of feasibility as far as possible. And we're not -- you're not asking us to do additional work at this point, which we would prefer not to do at this point. Chair [2:10:59]: Okay. So we still park it, but we park it without feasible. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. That's helpful. we any further views from the room with regard to 41 we have of course the caveat from the US with regard to 39 40 41 so anyhow it will be parked because it seems to be complicated so we are not dealing with here and now But are there any other views with regard to 41? Then we can still hear them. If that's not the case, we park 41 and we move to 42. I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [2:12:22]: Thank you, distinguished Mr. Chairman. We think in paragraph 42, we see a continuation of this dichotomy between the concept of response of the concepts of responsibility and accountability. For a long time, we've been playing around with those terms. And paragraph 42 has become the victim of that game. In our opinion, the first half of that paragraph, there we should reinstate the wording that we had in the previous version, specifically adding and accountable period for the before for their decisions. Also, in the second part, we wouldn't object to using the term accountability, as has been done now, before the phrase cannot be transferred to machines. But together with accountability, we would propose using the term responsibility. So, the ending would read as follows:. "Since responsibility and accountability cannot be transferred to machines...". In that case, we would use both concepts, both terms. The interpretation that we agreed to throughout the group's work is that, in our opinion, both terms would be appropriate. but, for the sake of consistency, we should use both terms in the first part of the provision and in the second part of the provision, also. Thank you. Chair [2:14:33]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for highlighting this, and we had some internal discussions on this also, because it seems that the Group has not always been perfectly consistent. Your fix is to just, in a way, merge it. Let me just have a moment of reflection behind the table. The view from behind the table is that we then have hopefully fixed it for the future, but I'm looking to the room whether this is palatable to the rest of the delegations, because if you go back to all the texts, you will find different things. So That is not helpful. So we have we have made certain choices, but we can make a choice here also. I recognize the distinguished representative of the United States. So you have the floor. United States of America [2:16:08]: Sorry, I apologize to the room, Chair. One of your team was talking to us during the Russian intervention, and I don't know that I know what the proposal is. Chair [2:16:17]: The proposal now is covered correctly that we will, sorry, we will have state parties to armed conflict and individuals remain at all times responsible under applicable international law and accountable for their decisions with regard to the use of laws since responsibility and accountability cannot be transferred to machines. So we have both We insert "and accountable" in the first part of the sentence, and we insert "responsibility" in the second part of the sentence. So in both parts, we have both concepts. You have the floor, U.S. delegation. United States of America [2:17:25]: Yes, sorry, Chair, and not to belabor this particular issue, and we're happy to sort of continue the discussion. I do think we see there's been a debate about what accountability means, whether it is a synonym for responsible or whether it is a concept that includes or that is more exclusively focused on the holding accountable of people that have violated whatever the rule is. And there have been some very useful interventions by our Swiss colleagues that have tried to draw out these nuances. And so, I do think we want to look at this. I don't know that we have a conceptual concern. But it may depend on what people mean by accountable here. And we would like to have a little bit more time to reflect on that. Chair [2:18:23]: I thank the distinguished representative of the US. This was how I try to remember it. But I think it goes beyond what we are doing now to have long reflections on that. So let's also park this, but indeed the idea then, if it works, to have both of them and we are there. But if there's a problem, we will have to readdress that. So this was 42. Let's now move to para 43. May I take then that there is general agreement with regard to 43? Then we move on to 44. May I take it that there is then general agreement with regard to 44? I see you have raised from the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [2:19:59]: Thank you, distinguished Chairman. since 44 talks about individual certain measures that states could adopt at a national level to ensure corresponding responsibility. We would prefer in the chapeau of that paragraph Instead of the word "should", we would rather use "are encouraged to". States are encouraged to. Furthermore, in, we would prefer to delete from the brackets "rules of engagement". Russian practice does not contain the concept of rules of engagement. We have a different name for it, and it is presented in the form of other documents. Rules of engagement are more inherent to the practice of western states, and therefore we would prefer to strike that wording from sub-paragraph. Chair [2:21:30]: Yes, I must say I was already expecting that, but and I thank you for being consistent. With regard to rules of engagement, we have a double qualify in a way. We have inter alia and For example, so yes, for example, doesn't mean that everybody needs to have it, but I think an overwhelming majority of high contracting parties in the room really have the concept and they know very well what is under it and also in the UN we know what it is. So that is was a reason for my delegate for the my team and I to to still have it in the text. So it's not so much whether everybody has it, but whether we can just have it mentioned here in the in the line. Where we have a number of other proposals also. Then there is. the proposal by the Russian Federation to replace "should" by "are encouraged to". Would that be palatable to other delegations? If there are no objections, then I can take that as a replacement for "should". I recognize the distinguished representative of Switzerland. You have the floor, sir. Switzerland [2:23:15]: Thank you, Mr Chair. We wonder whether this is not a further weakening of very practical measures. As you said, it has several qualifiers in it, with the "should" and the "inter alia", and we would highly prefer to keep the text as it is. Chair [2:23:48]: I have a further request for the floor from the Republic of Korea. Let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of the ROK. Republic of Korea [2:23:57]: Thank you, Chair. We are flexible to both suggestions by our Russian colleague to solve the problem on the rules of engagement. Maybe you can just go with the rules or guidelines, so make it more general. Thank you. Chair [2:24:17]: I thank the distinguished representative of the IRK for commenting and making a proposal. Let me just one moment reflect. Well, let us first benefit from the wisdom of the distinguished representative of India. You have the floor, sir. India [2:25:15]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would disappoint you to say that I don't have much wisdom to offer insofar as paragraph 44B is concerned, but I have two points to make. First, we can support the Russian edit on turning should to are encouraged to. And secondly, we would like to propose another sub paragraph, C bis, which should be, you know, I'll read that for you, which is prevent diversion, theft or illicit acquisition of loss. That, in our view, should be reflected as sub paragraph D under paragraph 44. So I'll repeat the language. which is to prevent diversion, theft or illicit acquisition of loss. Thank you. Chair [2:26:40]: I have a further request for the floor. Let's now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland. You have the floor. Ireland [2:26:48]: Thank you, Chair. Briefly, like Switzerland, we would resist the change from "should" to "are encouraged to". "Should" is already quite a weak word, and we think that further diluting it weakens this part of the text, so we would oppose that suggestion. Thank you. Chair [2:27:09]: I thank the distinguished representative of Ireland for stating the position of his delegation. I have one more request for the floor from the United Arab Emirates. Let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of the UAE. You have the floor. United Arab Emirates [2:27:27]: Thank you. We have no comment per se in reaction to what other delegations have said about 44. We would just like to say that we support the wording as is. We feel that some measures mentioned in the text amount to significant safeguards for responsible use of these systems. As to the word "promote", paragraphs 42 and 43 underscore that responsibility and accountability are the responsibility of individuals and not machines, which is why perhaps the verb support could be more fitting because it's not, we're not talking about a mere objective to meet, but rather principles that needed to be supported and enforced on the ground. Thank you. Chair [2:28:29]: I thank the distinguished representative of the UAE. We have a further request now from the distinguished representative of Sweden. You have the floor. Sweden [2:28:38]: Thank you, Chair. Just very briefly, we would prefer to keep "should" and we could live with "should inter alia". Thank you. Chair [2:28:50]: Thank you for that. Yeah, for the time being, I think we can't solve this now. So I have to park this also. And I would like to invite delegations to think about the Indian proposal that was to prevent diversion, theft, or illicit acquisition of laws. Let me now move to para 45. I recognize the distinguished representative of the US. You have the floor, sir. United States of America [2:29:43]: Thank you, Chair. We do appreciate the revision, which did address some concerns that we had expressed with this. I think we would propose to add a phrase that makes clear that to the extent that states are taking measures necessary to prevent and suppress violations, that they are focused on violations of their particular obligations under international law, because as many delegations have noted, they may vary. And there could at least theoretically be people in the jurisdiction of the United States that would have violated an international obligation of some other state, but it would not be a violation of our obligations, and I don't think we would have jurisdiction. So we would propose to add violations of their obligations under international law as a way to clarify that point. Thank you. Chair [2:31:03]: So let me just repeat for the room, states must take measures necessary to prevent and suppress violations of their obligations under international law applicable in armed conflict relating to the use of laws under their jurisdiction. I recognize the distinguished representative of Turkey. You have the floor. Türkiye [2:31:37]: Thank you, Chair. Like I said in the beginning, we're carefully reviewing the changes you made to 45 and 46, and thank you very much for addressing our major concerns there. And hopefully we'll get back to you on them as soon as we can. But there's one thing I can already say about 45. That is, as you would recall, we ask that on their territory under their jurisdiction be replaced with on their territory at the end of paragraph 45. The current text relating to the use of laws under their jurisdiction unfortunately does not resolve our concern. So we kindly reiterate our request that this obligation be anchored to a state's own territory rather than to the broader and more contested concept of jurisdiction. Thank you. Chair [2:32:44]: I thank the distinguished representative of Turkey for sharing the views of her delegation. With regard to the changes made, are there any comments with regard to the change that the U.S. would like to make? I recognize the distinguished representative of Israel. You have the floor. Israel [2:33:06]: Thank you, Chair. Regarding paragraph 45, we noticed the word "appropriate" was deleted in this version and we would like to request to reinstate it so it will read states must take appropriate measures necessary to prevent and suppress violations. This word has appeared in this paragraph in the past versions of the text and we think it's important to be preserved. Thank you. Chair [2:33:40]: I thank the distinguished representative of Israel for stating the views of his delegation. Let me have a look what we do. Yes. Let me share what we think about it now. I have some hesitations in adding appropriate in combination with necessary, so that would need some further reflection. I think we have to put the lawyers to work with regard to on the territory jurisdiction, because as already was indicated by the distinguished representative of Turkey, there are different schools on that. And I don't think we are going to solve that in this room. Good. Or not so good yet. Let me now move to power 46. I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [2:35:13]: Thank you, distinguished Chairman. In line with the same logic that we put forward for para 44, since in 46 we're talking about decisions taken at a national level, measures that have a national dimension, we propose replacing the word "must" with "are encouraged to". So the start of the sentence would read "States are encouraged to ensure effective internal mechanisms" and then as is. Thank you. Chair [2:36:01]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for sharing the views of his delegation. I have two more requests from the United States and from the United Kingdom. Let me first pass the floor to the distinguished representative of the U.S. You have the floor, sir. United States of America [2:36:18]: Thank you, Chair. I think on this one, our observation would be that we have been preserving must formulations for those paragraphs or those sentences that we think are reflective of a current legal obligation. We don't believe that would be the case for this. We would recommend changing the "must" to "need to." So it would read, "states need to ensure." For us, that would address our legal concern, and we would be happy to leave it in this form. Thank you. Chair [2:36:59]: I thank the distinguished representative of the US for sharing the views of his delegation, making a proposal that we can reflect on that. But let's first hear the views of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea. But first, our UK colleague, you have the floor. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:37:18]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just reading through this now, with the removal of the terms "investigate," "report," reporting and appropriate action, there seems to be a missing object in that sentence. We are wondering whether we should be saying internal mechanisms for addressing incidents, or putting an additional word in there. So that's just something to consider. Equally, we also endorse the US approach to the must statement in this paragraph and the change to need to. Thank you. Chair [2:38:03]: I thank the distinguished representative of the UK for commenting and the proposal. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea, to be followed by Paloma. You have Republic of Korea [2:38:16]: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor again. We support the US suggestion to change need to, and also UK suggestion, I think, addressing after four. And actually, I was going to comment on 45. And looking at 46, the formulation there, their use of laws, I think we can use that also in 45 and just relating to their use of laws and delete the rest. That's my suggestion, thank you, Chair. Chair [2:38:44]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea. And next on my list is the distinguished representative of Panama. Panama [2:38:52]: Thank you very much indeed. Very briefly, we prefer the paragraph be kept as drafted, very consistent with other paragraphs speaking about the importance of ensuring that who is responsible, who is accountable when violations of international law occur, especially violations of IHL as a result of the use of laws. To guarantee accountability, we feel that it would be more appropriate to keep "must". Thank you. Chair [2:39:42]: Yes, until you spoke, the distinguished representative of Panama, I was intended to propose that to take over the suggestion by, or at least propose to the room, the suggestion need to. So let me put that, I see already Russian Federation taking no, then we have a problem here also. So next one is then 47. Let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [2:40:19]: Thank you, distinguished Chairman. We continue to believe that this paragraph is redundant. Therefore, we propose striking it in full. Thank you. Chair [2:41:19]: Sorry, I was just reminded by my team that we have a proposal to include language with regards to design and development in para, what was it, 32? Oh, in para 32. So, This is something I would like at least to give also into consideration for delegations if you make comments, because I already have a few on my list. So then I'll open the floor. And first on my list is the distinguished representative of Brazil. You have the floor to be followed by Pakistan. Brazil [2:42:07]: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. My delegation believes that this formulation is far from redundant. And that indeed it appears nowhere else in the text and is an essential element for ensuring that all the substantive elements that are contained before, including the prohibitions, but also the regulations that that are in this document are taken on board at the design phase, which is the most critical phase for for laying the groundwork for ensuring that they are complied with at the later stages of the life cycle. So our preference is strong for retaining this language. We believe that the changes that you have introduced, which are made, make this language more specific by referring to specific paragraphs, is very positive and we are strongly attached to its permanence in this text. Thank you. Chair [2:43:12]: I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. Let me now hear the views of the distinguished representative of Pakistan, to be followed by Australia, but first Pakistan. Pakistan [2:43:24]: Thank you, Chair. Chair, this is one of those paragraphs, I think, that has been kicked around, pushed around right from the start of this process. When we were working on different boxes, this was in this concept was captured in box 2, on which perhaps we had always assumed that there was the strongest level of convergence, since we are talking about reiterating what is there already in existing law. And I would like to recall that the first guiding principle already talks about the development and use of laws when we are trying to ensure compliance of IHL. So we see very much very good value of retaining this concept. We like the new drafting to make the language more concrete. And lastly, Chair, we think if this is considered redundant and there are delegations who still attach very strong value to this, then perhaps there is no significant cost of retaining this in the text. I mean, the cost of redundancy is something that can be borne by delegations. Thank you. Chair [2:44:38]: Let me thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan for sharing the views of the delegation. Next on my list is Austria, to be followed by Mexico and the Republic of Korea. But first, Austria, you have the floor. Austria [2:44:50]: Thank you very much, Chair. I can be very brief. We do agree with our previous speakers. This is the design element is no less than the text design, development and use. All of this must be taken into account. And we agree that having some redundancy in the text not necessarily is a problem to us. So we strongly suggest to keep this paragraph in the text. Thank you. Chair [2:45:20]: Thank you for stating the position of your delegation. Next on my list is Mexico. Mexico [2:45:27]: Thank you very much indeed, Chair. Executive considers that this paragraph is key. We cannot support its elimination, much or its dilution, much less its elimination. We feel it represents a compromise. As the distinguished representative of Pakistan said, given that before. It was it happened to be in box 2 and as far as we are concerned. The. study of laws phase could be added. We therefore prefer this wording, and we would not accept any dilution thereof. Chair [2:46:10]: I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico, and let me now hear the views of the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea, and then I have to close the speakers list because of the time. But first, the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea. Republic of Korea [2:46:29]: Thank you, Chair. So, I think the Russian suggestion about inserting the paragraph 23A from the 2019 report is worth considering because it addressed the issue of the design, development and testing. and it can be more specific than the paragraph 47, and it also addresses the issue of the risk of the proliferation that our Indian colleague also addressed. So I think there can be one solution. I don't support putting this paragraph into the 32 or 31, because it's a different thing level. I think it can be a good solution to replace 47. Thank you, Chair. Chair [2:47:18]: Thank you. I see a further request from the Russian Federation. You have the floor. Russian Federation [2:47:25]: Thank you, distinguished Chairman. In view of the comments made by the delegations, we feel that we need a short clarification regarding our proposal. On the one hand, yes, in the text there is a number of provisions that refer to taking into account certain understandings related to the use of such weapons systems at the development, production, programming and design stages. On the other hand, The addition that we propose for paragraph 32 also factors in certain elements related to the stages of development and design. What is more, distinguished Mr. Chairman, We do not understand why we are placing the focus only on understandings that the group is establishing for the previous three years. We have an understanding for previous years. There are the understandings of 2018, 2019 and 2023, all within this group, which we think deserve no less being taken into account. In order to avoid that, we propose therefore deleting this paragraph, because for us it speaks for itself that the understandings reached by the group, they are taken into account. at national level in the context related to various stages of the life cycle of those systems. Thank you. Chair [2:49:34]: I think that's it then for a first reading of the paras of the revised draft report and then of course the part regarding the substance. So for those of you who have any plans for tomorrow night, I would really seriously reconsider them, because there is still a lot of work to be done. And talking about work to be done, we have work to be done as of seven with regard to the paragraphs 34 to 37. And we will do that in an informal mode in room three, I think. Yes, we will do that in room three. For those of you, what, no, in room three, for those of you who want to escape for a moment, don't forget to get back before seven, otherwise you will have to climb the fence. Having said that, I have, well, you have an hour and see you, sorry, one more request, yes. Brazil [2:50:46]: Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, are we meeting at 7:30 or as usual as we have or at 7:00? Chair [2:50:52]: No, we are meeting at 7:00. Yeah, yeah. We are going to put a little bit pressure on all of you because we don't have too much time left. I'm sorry.