link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 
Updated April 19, 2021
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 is the role of the human operator with regard
Table 1. State Stances on Preemptive LAWS Ban
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, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
a. State is not party to the CCW.
has 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
Alternative Approaches to Managing LAWS. Other
The CCW has considered proposals to ban LAWS, as well
states have proposed that the CCW instead focus on
as proposals to regulate or issue political declarations about
enhancing transparency in weapons development and
them. CCW States Parties have not reached a consensus on
sharing best practices for weapons review processes. France
which of these approaches, if any, they will adopt.
and Germany, for example, have proposed issuing a non-
legally binding political declaration that would affirm that
Arguments Supporting Preemptive LAWS Ban. In
international humanitarian law applies to LAWS and that
addition to the states listed in Table 1, approximately 165
“[States Parties] share the conviction that humans should
nongovernmental organizations have called for a
continue to be able to make ultimate decisions with regard
preemptive ban on LAWS due to ethical concerns. These
to the use of lethal force and should continue to exert
concerns include a perceived lack of accountability for use
sufficient control over lethal weapons systems they use.”
and a perceived inability to comply with the proportionality
France and Germany have additionally proposed the
and distinction requirements of IHL. Some analysts have
establishment within the CCW of a consultative committee
also raised concerns about LAWS’s potential operational
of technical experts to advise states on relevant
risks. For example, as Center for a New American Security
technological developments.
analyst Paul Scharre has noted, risks could arise from
“hacking, enemy behavioral manipulation, unexpected
Positions of the United States, Russia, and China
interactions with the environment, or simple malfunctions
Although the CCW operates by consensus, the United
or software errors” and could potentially result in civilian or
States, Russia, and China—as leading military powers—are
noncombatant casualties. Although such risks could be
likely to be particularly influential in determining the
present in automated systems, they could be heightened in
trajectory of international discussions of LAWS.
autonomous systems, in which the human operator would
be unable to physically intervene to terminate
United States. The U.S. delegation to the CCW has
engagements—potentially resulting in wider-scale or more
consistently opposed any preemptive ban on LAWS,
numerous instances of fratricide, civilian casualties, or
arguing that LAWS could potentially provide a
other unintended consequences.
humanitarian benefit and that existing IHL is sufficient to
govern the development and use of LAWS.
Those supporting a preemptive ban on LAWS have
additionally appealed to the Martens Clause, which appears
Russia. The Russian delegation to the CCW has also
in the 1899 Hague Convention preamble and states that
opposed a preemptive ban on LAWS, noting that LAWS
weapons use should conform to the “principles of humanity
could “ensure the increased accuracy of weapon guidance
and the dictates of the public conscience.” These analysts
on military targets, while contributing to lower rate of
believe that LAWS contravene that requirement; however,
unintentional strikes against civilians and civilian targets.”
others have noted that the Martens Clause has not been used
It has also argued there is no proper legal precedent for a
previously to ban a weapons system and, furthermore, that
preemptive international ban on an entire class of weapons.
the legal status of the Martens Clause is questionable and
China. The Chinese delegation has stated that China
instead constitutes “merely a recognition of ‘customary
supports a ban on the use—but not development—of
international law.’”
LAWS, which it defines to be indiscriminate, lethal systems
Arguments Opposing Preemptive LAWS Ban. A number
that do not have any human oversight and cannot be
of countries have voiced their opposition to a preemptive
terminated. China is the only country that defines LAWS in
ban on LAWS. These countries have noted the potential
this manner, and analysts note that such a weapon would be
military utility of LAWS, which could operate in
unable to comply with IHL and therefore would be
communications-degraded or -denied environments where
inherently illegal. Some analysts have argued that China is
traditional systems may not be able to operate. LAWS
maintaining “strategic ambiguity” about its position on
could also potentially enable new concepts of operations,
LAWS.
such as swarming, in which large formations of
Potential Questions for Congress
autonomous vehicles could be deployed to overwhelm
defensive systems. (Some proponents of a ban have argued
Is the executive branch keeping Congress adequately
that swarms of autonomous vehicles could alternatively
informed about developments, both international and
provide states or terrorist organizations with comparatively
domestic, concerning LAWS and their regulation?
inexpensive weapons of mass destruction.)
What role should the United States play in UN CCW
discussions of LAWS? Should the United States support
Countries opposing a preemptive ban have additionally
the status quo, propose a political declaration, or
noted the potential humanitarian benefits of LAWS, which
advocate regulation of or a ban on LAWS?
may be able to “strike military objectives more accurately
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
Kelley M. Sayler, Analyst in Advanced Technology and
are concerned that a preemptive ban on LAWS could
Global Security
inhibit research into technologies that may provide civilian
benefits (e.g. elder care robots).
IF11294
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 4 · UPDATED