link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 
August 16, 2019
International Discussions Concerning Lethal Autonomous
Weapon Systems
As technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI),
antimateriel), although there is much debate over the
advances, lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS)—
specifics of these terms, in addition to other details.
weapons designed to make decisions about using lethal
force without manual human control—may soon make their
Status. Over the past several decades, governments around
appearance, raising a number of potential ethical,
the world have been successfully incorporating autonomous
diplomatic, legal, and strategic concerns for Congress. By
functions into their weapons. However, as of now, no lethal
providing a brief overview of ongoing international
antipersonnel weapons are recognized as having fully
discussions concerning LAWS, this In Focus seeks to assist
autonomous target selection and engagement capabilities or
Congress as it conducts oversight hearings on AI within the
demonstrating enough human-level cognition to be trusted
military (as the House and Senate Committees on Armed
to apply lethal force in compliance with the Laws of Armed
Services have done in recent years), guides U.S. foreign
Conflict (LOAC). Nonetheless, the potential of LAWS is so
policy, and makes funding and authorization decisions
great that Stuart Russell, computer science professor at the
related to LAWS.
University of California, describes them as “the third
revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.”
International Fora for LAWS Discussions
The international community has begun to examine the
Table 1. Nation Stances on Preemptive LAWS Ban
implications of LAWS in discussions held primarily under
Support
Othera
Oppose
the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW),
Algeria
Ghana
Chinab
Australia
a multilateral arms control agreement to which the United
Argentina
Guatemala
Belgium
States became a party in 1982, intended to protect
Austria
Holy See
Franceb
Bolivia
Iraq
Germany
noncombatants from particularly inhumane weapons of
war. The CCW’s five protocols ban or regulate s
Brazil
Mexico
Israelb
pecific
Chile
Morocco
South Koreab
conventional weapons, notably blinding lasers. The CCW’s
Colombia
Nicaragua
Russiab
decisions are made by consensus among the treaty’s States
Costa Rica
Pakistan
Spain
Parties, and it has served in the past as a platform for
Cuba
Panama
Sweden
discussing new weapon technologies.
Djibouti
Peru
Turkey
Ecuador
Uganda
United Statesb
Since 2014, the CCW has convened annual meetings of its
Egypt
Venezuela
United Kingdomb
States Parties to discuss the legal, ethical, technological,
El Salvador
Zimbabwe
and military facets of LAWS. These meetings were
Source: CRS consolidation of November 2018 and April 2019 data
upgraded in 2017 from informal “Meetings of Experts” to a
from multiple sources.
formal Group of Government Experts (GGE). The GGE
a. See section on China below.
invites experts from civil society to partake in the
b. Countries most capable of developing LAWS soon.
deliberations alongside members of national delegations.
LAWS Regulation Debate
Arguments Supporting LAWS Ban. Moral arguments in
Despite six years of debate, the GGE has not produced any
favor of a ban contend that LAWS distance human
specific policy recommendations for the CCW’s States
judgement too much from immediate decisions about taking
Parties. Although the meetings have led to a consensus that
human life to be morally acceptable under any
appropriate levels of human judgement must be maintained
circumstances and so must be banned.
over any LAWS and that LAWS are subject to International
Humanitarian Law (IHL), the mechanics of applying both
Legal arguments contend that LAWS could violate the
terms remain contentious (e.g., does IHL categorically ban
spirit, if not the letter, of both IHL and LOAC and should
LAWS?), and the limited scope of agreement provides no
therefore be preemptively banned. In this view, LAWS
basis for further action.
could, due to poor design, engage in the prohibited practice
What Are LAWS?
of attacking and killing noncombatants without being held
accountable. Legal arguments sometimes cite the CCW
Definitions. One reason for the lack of progress within the
protocol on blinding lasers as a comparative case.
CCW GGE is that no single definition for LAWS is
universally accepted, especially within diplomatic and
Strategic arguments against LAWS make the case that the
international fora, where some countries argue that an
development of LAWS could hurt more than help a
internationally accepted definition is unnecessary. Most
country’s national security, because, once developed,
parties to the LAWS discussions do agree that the defining
LAWS can be relatively easy to proliferate to potential
features of LAWS are full autonomy (no need for manual
adversaries, particularly since AI technology is easily
human control) and lethality (antipersonnel as opposed to
disseminated due to its digital nature.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
International Discussions Concerning Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
Arguments Opposing Restrictions on LAWS. Countries
international regulation of LAWS is likely to be politicized.
are interested in LAWS because LAWS could provide
Russia’s military is increasing its work on AI technology,
significant military advantages over potential adversaries.
but it continues to lag behind the United States and China.
Many believe that LAWS could be used in swarming
attacks or to penetrate anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD)
China. At the 2018 CCW GGE meeting, the Chinese
zones without human casualties. As such, strategic concerns
delegation stated that China supported a ban on the use—
are often behind opposition to restrictions on LAWS.
but not development—of LAWS, which it defines to be
indiscriminate, lethal systems that do not have any human
Moral arguments opposing LAWS regulation often contend
oversight and cannot be terminated, thereby rendering them
that banning LAWS or restricting their development would
inherently in violation of LOAC. However, China also
stymie research into technologies that may have civilian or
acknowledges the dual-use benefits of the enabling
dual-use benefits. Others also claim that LAWS can help
technologies behind LAWS. Within the Chinese
governments uphold their moral duty of protecting their
government, many have expressed fears of an AI arms race,
citizens by improving a country’s national security.
although the Chinese military has invested heavily in
developing autonomous weapons, which, according to some
Legal arguments contend that LAWS uphold IHL by
analysts, it views as the future of warfare. Some believe that
potentially reducing disproportionate collateral damage
China is maintaining “strategic ambiguity” about the
during warfare and providing commanders with more
international legality of LAWS to pursue its military goals.
information so they can better distinguish military targets
from civilians. Others argue that the spirit of IHL focuses
Nonstate and Nontraditional Actors
not on the weapons themselves but on the manner of their
Given the predominantly security based concerns of
use; as such, human commanders are to remain responsible
governmental actors and the current nonexistence of
for any decisions made regarding the use of LAWS.
LAWS, numerous nonstate actors, such as
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), have provided
Arguments Supporting LAWS Regulation. Arguments in
technical and ethical expertise to the discussions on LAWS.
favor of regulation instead of a ban tend to recognize the
One such actor is the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a
potential benefits that LAWS and related technologies may
global coalition of NGOs founded in 2012 that lobbies for a
bring, while also acknowledging concerns that may arise
complete ban of LAWS. Another is the Future of Life
from their use. Such arguments may suggest banning the
Institute, which, in 2015, offered an open letter strongly
use of LAWS in warfare but not their development,
condemning LAWS that has now been signed by over
prohibiting certain types or features of LAWS, or
30,000 people, including well-known individuals such as
establishing a framework for nonproliferation. However,
Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking. On the other
some have suggested that no regulatory action should be
hand, the World Economic Forum and Chatham House
taken until LAWS are actually developed, as preemptive
have opposed any ban on LAWS. The International
restrictions on such weapons may be inherently flawed.
Committee of the Red Cross, Center for a New American
Security, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and other
Positions of the United States, Russia, and China
groups have also all participated actively in the debate.
The United States, Russia, and China are likely to be the
most influential actors in determining whether LAWS will
Potential Questions for Congress
be regulated, especially since the United States and China
Should the United States maintain or change its current
are widely viewed as the world’s two leading nations in AI
position on a preemptive ban of LAWS? Should it
technology, and all three are currently engaged in an
consider regulating these systems or issuing a political
ongoing security competition.
declaration regarding their development or use?
United States. At CCW GGE meetings, the U.S. delegation
Is the executive branch keeping Congress adequately
has consistently opposed any preemptive international
informed about developments, both international and
regulation or interpretation of existing IHL that would
domestic, concerning LAWS and their regulation?
preemptively ban autonomous weapons. The United States
What does the United States know about the efforts of
has pointed to the unpredictable pace of technological
China, Russia, and other nations to develop LAWS?
development, the anthropocentric (not machine-centric)
What are the implications of the CCW’s lack of
spirit of IHL, the potential ability of LAWS to uphold IHL
agreement of specific policy recommendations?
and save human life, and the dual-use benefits of LAWS-
enabling technologies as the main reasons for its current
CRS Products
stance. Although the U.S. military is not currently
developing LAWS, the Department of Defense has invested
CRS Report R44466, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: Issues
heavily in increasing autonomy in some weapons, in
for Congress, by Nathan J. Lucas
addition to studying the potential uses of LAWS.
CRS In Focus IF11150, Defense Primer: U.S. Policy on Lethal
Autonomous Weapon Systems, by Kelley M. Sayler
Russia. Russia’s delegation to the CCW GGE has also
opposed any international regulation of LAWS. Russia has
continually emphasized the national security benefits that
LAWS may provide and pointed out the dual-use benefits
Zelin Liu, Volunteer
of LAWS enabling technologies. It also argues that there is
Michael Moodie, Assistant Director and Senior Specialist
no proper legal precedent for a preemptive international ban
in Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade
on an entire class of weapons and declares that any
https://crsreports.congress.gov
International Discussions Concerning Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
IF11294
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11294 · VERSION 1 · NEW