link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 
Updated October 15, 2020
International Discussions Concerning Lethal Autonomous
Weapon Systems
Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), or weapons
International Forum for LAWS Discussions
designed to independently select and engage targets without
The international community examines the implications of
the need for manual human control, could enable military
LAWS in discussions held primarily under the auspices of
operations in communications-degraded or -denied
the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional
environments where traditional systems may not be able to
Weapons (CCW), a multilateral arms control agreement to
operate. LAWS are not yet in widespread development.
which the United States became a party in 1982. The
However, as technology advances—particularly artificial
CCW’s purpose is to “ban or restrict the use of specific
intelligence (AI)—a larger number of countries may
types of weapons that are considered to cause unnecessary
consider developing and operating LAWS. This could hold
or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to affect civilians
potential implications for congressional oversight, defense
indiscriminately.”
investments, military concepts of operations, treaty-making,
Since 2014, the CCW has convened annual meetings of
and the future of warfare.
States Parties, observers, and members of civil society to
As has been the case throughout history, incorporation of
discuss the legal, ethical, technological, and military facets
new technology into weapons systems creates a number of
of LAWS. These meetings were elevated in 2017 from
potential legal, ethical, strategic, and operational problems.
informal Meetings of Experts to a formal Group of
For this reason, some members of the international
Government Experts (GGE). After each session of the
community seek through international discussions to
GGE, the session’s chair produces a draft report that details
constrain—if not ban—LAWS.
session proceedings and offers conclusions and
recommendations for future work. States Parties then adopt
What Are LAWS?
the final report by consensus.
Definitions. No single, universally accepted definition of
In 2018, States Parties additionally agreed to a set of
LAWS is used in international discussions. However,
“guiding principles” for LAWS. States Parties agreed that
Department of Defense Directive 3000.09, which
international humanitarian law (IHL) would apply to
establishes U.S. policy on autonomy in weapons systems,
defines LAWS as “weapon system[s] that, once activated,
LAWS, that humans must remain responsible for decisions
about the use of force, and that states must consider the
can select and engage targets without further intervention
by a human operator.”
risks of LAWS acquisition by, or proliferation to, terrorists.
This definition’s principal
characteristic, then is the role of the human operator with
Table 1. State Stances on Preemptive LAWS Ban
regard to target selection and engagement decisions.
Support
Opposeb
Otherc
Other countries such as the United Kingdom, however,
Algeria
Guatemala
Australia
China
have grounded their definition of LAWS on different
Argentina
Holy See
France
characteristics, in particular the technological sophistication
Austria
Iraq
Germany
Bolivia
Jordan
Israel
of the weapon system, such that LAWS are considered to
Brazil
Mexico
New Zealand
be weapon systems capable of human-level cognition. Still
Chile
Morocco
Russia
others do not believe that a definition of LAWS is
Colombia
Namibia
South Korea
required—or desirable—for international discussions.
Costa Rica
Nicaragua
Spain
Despite these differences, most parties to the LAWS
Cuba
Pakistan
Turkey
discussions generally agree that the defining features of
Djibouti
Panama
United Kingdom
LAWS include full autonomy (no manual human control of
Ecuador
Peru
United States
the system) and the potential to produce lethal effects.
Egypta
Uganda
El Salvador
Venezuela
Status. Although the pursuit of LAWS is not yet
Ghanaa
Zimbabwea
widespread, some analysts have argued that Israel’s Harpy
Source: CRS consolidation of data from multiple sources.
loitering munition—which the weapon’s manufacturer, IAI,
Notes: CCW discussions on LAWS exclude existing weapons
describes as being fully autonomous—qualifies. Israel has
systems. Therefore, States Parties consider any potential LAWS ban
exported the Harpy to Chile, China, India, South Korea, and
to be preemptive.
Turkey. Similarly, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has
a. State is not party to the CCW.
noted that Chinese manufacturer Ziyan has advertised a
b. States that oppose a preemptive LAWS ban do not necessarily
fully autonomous system, the Blowfish A3 helicopter
share the same alternative approach to managing LAWS.
drone, which it has reportedly exported to the Middle East.
c. See section below on China.
In addition, according to a report by the Defense Innovation
Board, the United States developed LAWS during the
1980s but no longer has LAWS in its inventory.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 1 International Discussions Concerning Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
Debate About Approaches to Managing LAWS
sharing best practices for weapons review processes. France
The CCW has considered proposals to ban LAWS, as well
and Germany, for example, have proposed issuing a non-
as proposals to regulate or issue political declarations about
legally binding political declaration that would affirm that
them. CCW States Parties have not reached a consensus on
international humanitarian law applies to LAWS and that
which of these approaches, if any, it will adopt.
“[States Parties] share the conviction that humans should
continue to be able to make ultimate decisions with regard
Arguments Supporting Preemptive LAWS Ban. In
to the use of lethal force and should continue to exert
addition to the states listed in Table 1, approximately 165
sufficient control over lethal weapons systems they use.”
nongovernmental organizations have called for a
France and Germany have additionally proposed the
preemptive ban on LAWS due to ethical concerns. These
establishment within the CCW of a consultative committee
include a perceived lack of accountability for use and a
of technical experts to advise states on relevant
perceived inability to comply with the proportionality and
technological developments.
distinction requirements of IHL. Some analysts have also
raised concerns about LAWS’s potential operational risks.
Positions of the United States, Russia, and China
For example, as Center for a New American Security
Although the CCW operates by consensus, the United
analyst Paul Scharre has noted, risks could arise from
States, Russia, and China—as leading military powers—are
“hacking, enemy behavioral manipulation, unexpected
likely to be particularly influential in determining the
interactions with the environment, or simple malfunctions
trajectory of international discussions of LAWS.
or software errors” and could potentially result in civilian or
noncombatant casualties. Although such risks could be
United States. The U.S. delegation to the CCW has
present in automated systems, they could be heightened in
consistently opposed any preemptive ban on LAWS,
autonomous systems, in which the human operator would
arguing that LAWS could potentially provide a
be unable to physically intervene to terminate
humanitarian benefit and that existing IHL is sufficient to
engagements—potentially resulting in wider-scale or more
govern the development and use of LAWS.
numerous instances of fratricide, civilian casualties, or
Russia. The Russian delegation to the CCW has also
other unintended consequences.
opposed a preemptive ban on LAWS, noting that LAWS
Those supporting a preemptive ban on LAWS have
could “ensure the increased accuracy of weapon guidance
additionally appealed to the Martens Clause, which appears
on military targets, while contributing to lower rate of
in the 1899 Hague Convention preamble and states that
unintentional strikes against civilians and civilian targets.”
weapons use should conform to the “principles of humanity
It also argues there is no proper legal precedent for a
and the dictates of the public conscience.” These analysts
preemptive international ban on an entire class of weapons.
believe that LAWS contravene that requirement; however,
China. The Chinese delegation has stated that China
others have noted that the Martens Clause has not been used
supports a ban on the use—but not development—of
previously to ban a weapons system and, furthermore, that
LAWS, which it defines to be indiscriminate, lethal systems
the legal status of the Martens Clause is questionable and
that do not have any human oversight and cannot be
instead constitutes “merely a recognition of ‘customary
terminated. China is the only country that defines LAWS in
international law.’”
this manner, and analysts note that such a weapon would be
Arguments Opposing Preemptive LAWS Ban. A number
unable to comply with IHL and therefore is inherently
of countries have voiced their opposition to a preemptive
illegal. Some analysts have argued that China is
ban on LAWS. These countries have noted the potential
maintaining “strategic ambiguity” about its position on
military utility of LAWS, which could operate in
LAWS.
communications-degraded or -denied environments where
Potential Questions for Congress
traditional systems may not be able to operate. LAWS
could also potentially enable new concepts of operations,
Is the executive branch keeping Congress adequately
such as swarming, in which large formations of
informed about developments, both international and
autonomous vehicles could be deployed to overwhelm
domestic, concerning LAWS and their regulation?
defensive systems.
What role should the United States play in UN CCW
Countries opposing a preemptive ban have additionally
discussions of LAWS? Should the United States support
noted the potential humanitarian benefits of LAWS, which
the status quo, propose a political declaration, or
may be able to “strike military objectives more accurately
advocate regulation of or a ban on LAWS?
and with less risk of collateral damage or civilian
To what extent are potential U.S. adversaries developing
casualties” than traditional systems. These countries
LAWS? How, if at all, should this affect U.S. LAWS
contend that human operators will remain accountable for
research and development or the United States’ UN
the deployment of the systems and for ensuring that the
CCW position on LAWS?
systems’ use complies with IHL. Finally, some countries
are concerned that a preemptive ban on LAWS could
Kelley M. Sayler, Analyst in Advanced Technology and
stymie research into technologies that may provide civilian
Global Security
benefits (e.g. elder care robots).
Michael Moodie, Assistant Director and Senior Specialist
Alternative Approaches to Managing LAWS. Other
in Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade
states have proposed that the CCW instead focus on
IF11294
enhancing transparency in weapons development and
https://crsreports.congress.gov
International Discussions Concerning Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
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 2 · UPDATED