Thank you, Chair.
Human Rights Watch appreciates your convening this meeting and the work that you have put into developing and strengthening the rolling text. The text provides evidence of state convergence on many important policy issues.
At the same time, we urge states to remember that rolling text should be viewed as a good basis for negotiations, not an end in itself. Negotiations are needed to finalize the nuances of language and create a legally binding instrument that has a real-world impact.
We agree with the comments that have been delivered by Stop Killer Robots and some others that have spoken. I will reiterate some of these and add a few of our own here.
First, the characterization of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) in Box I does a good job capturing the general elements of the systems. Although we would recommend the deletion of the word “lethal” as many states and observers have requested, we welcome the inclusion of subparagraphs A and B.
While recognizing that the term “identify” has already been debated, we still have some concerns that it could be used to narrow the scope of what is considered a “lethal autonomous weapon system.” Further consideration of this issue is likely warranted, and the International Committee of the Red Cross raised some interesting options in its statement.
Second, we welcome Box III’s structure of prohibitions and positive obligations but believe the prohibitions need strengthening in two ways. Currently paragraphs 1-5 largely reiterate existing international humanitarian law, and more specific prohibitions are needed to tailor the text to the issue at hand.
A prohibition on autonomous weapon systems that target people should be added. Such systems pose a range of legal and ethical risks, include algorithmic bias and the loss of human dignity, that we have discussed in more detail in previous meetings of the Group of Governmental Experts.
The text should also include an explicit prohibition on systems that inherently lack meaningful human control, or context-appropriate human judgment and control—the characterization is more important than the specific term. The text does include, in paragraphs 6 and 7, positive obligations on that topic, but it does not make clear that a lack of such control warrants a prohibition.
Third, Box III, paragraph 7, enumerates several important criteria for preserving context-appropriate human judgment and control. We are concerned, however, about the deletion of language from a previous rolling text that called on states to “ensure the effects of LAWS are adequately predictable, reliable, traceable and explainable to those responsible for their use.” That paragraph should be reinserted because those characteristics are essential to ensuring human control over the use of force is meaningful.
Fourth, the qualifier in the chapeau of Box IV that reads “in addition to their legal obligations” should be deleted. Weapons reviews are a legal obligation for many states under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Regardless, the provisions on preventing harm throughout the lifecycle of autonomous weapons systems should not have explicitly less weight than other provisions of the rolling text, especially if the rolling text were to become a legally binding instrument as we believe it should.
In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your efforts, and reiterate our call to high contracting parties to continue work on this text with the goal of adopting a mandate to negotiate a legally binding instrument at their November 2026 Review Conference.
Thank you.
