The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (UN GGE LAWS) is the official negotiating forum of the United Nations for the treatment of lethal autonomous weapons systems under international law. It meets in Geneva within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and has been, since 2013, the central diplomatic venue where the community of states wrestles over rules for, or a prohibition of, autonomous lethal systems.
Origin and mandate
At the beginning stood informal meetings of experts of the CCW States Parties on LAWS (from 2014). After three years of technical preparation, the States Parties decided at the Fifth CCW Review Conference in December 2016 to establish a formal Group of Governmental Experts. Its mandate: to elaborate elements of a normative and operational framework for emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems. Since 2017 the GGE has met regularly in Geneva; its work is periodically extended by the CCW States Parties conferences.
The lines of dispute
The debates in the GGE run along three main axes:
What is to be regulated? One group of states — including Austria, New Zealand, Brazil, the Holy See, numerous states of the Global South, and large parts of international civil society — demands a legally binding prohibition of fully autonomous lethal systems. A second group — including the USA, Russia, Israel, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Australia — rejects a prohibition and points to existing international humanitarian law and to the technical difficulty of a precise definition. A third position, represented for instance by Germany and France, pleads for a political declaration and targeted self-commitments.
How is meaningful human control defined? The concept of meaningful human control is the central hinge. Its interpretation ranges from the formal presence of an operator to the demand for substantial participation of the person in every single target selection. In 2021 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) spoke out in favor of a narrow, substantive interpretation.
Which systems fall under the concept? The spectrum ranges from stationary point-defense systems (uncontroversially permissible) through loitering munitions (contested) to hypothetical fully autonomous combat robots (uncontroversially problematic). The GGE has adopted no definitive definition; instead it reached consensus on eleven Guiding Principles, which the States Parties adopted in 2019.
The eleven Guiding Principles (2019)
The Guiding Principles adopted by the CCW States Parties record, among other things: international humanitarian law applies in full to autonomous weapons systems as well; accountability must not be transferred to machines; human responsibility must remain secured through a responsible chain of command; risk assessments and confidence-building measures are to be established; and states are to strive for the transferability of review procedures. Critics note that the principles are non-binding and create no operational obligations.
The shift to the General Assembly
Because the GGE works by consensus procedure and individual states can block progress, advocates of a prohibition have shifted the topic to the UN General Assembly. Already in 2023 the General Assembly adopted a first resolution asking the UN Secretary-General to solicit the positions of states. On 6 November 2025 the First Committee of the General Assembly approved a further-reaching resolution aiming at a legally binding prohibition of certain LAWS; on 1 December 2025 the General Assembly adopted it as Resolution 80/57 — with 164 votes in favor against 6 against (Belarus, Burundi, North Korea, Israel, Russia, USA) and 7 abstentions. Already in 2023, in Policy Brief 9 on A New Agenda for Peace, UN Secretary-General António Guterres set the goal of a prohibition by the end of 2026.
The position of the Holy See
The Holy See has been active in the GGE since the beginning of the informal meetings and is among the clearest voices for a preventive prohibition of fully autonomous lethal systems. Its interventions rest on the inalienability of personal dignity and on the conviction that decisions over life and death must not be delegated to non-personal systems. Pope Francis summarized this position pointedly in his address to the G7 in 2024 (Borgo Egnazia).
Ontological classification
Object of regulation: Lethal autonomous weapons system, Combat robot, Combat drone, Drone swarm
Negotiates: Meaningful human control, prohibition regimes, self-commitments
Chapter assignment: Chapter 5: Oblivion of the Person (German)
See also
- Lethal autonomous weapons system
- Combat robot
- Combat drone
- Drone swarm
- Responsibility gap
- Degree of autonomy
- Rome Call for AI Ethics
- War
- AI ethics
- Robert Sparrow
Sources: Generated by querying the Personhood ontology.
Further sources:
- UN Office for Disarmament Affairs: Background on LAWS in the CCW. Geneva (ongoing).
- CCW Group of Governmental Experts (2019): Report of the 2019 session (CCW/GGE.1/2019/3), Annex IV: Guiding Principles.
- International Committee of the Red Cross (2021): ICRC position on autonomous weapon systems. Geneva.
- United Nations General Assembly (2025): Resolution 80/57, Lethal autonomous weapons systems, approved by the First Committee on 6 November 2025 and adopted by the General Assembly on 1 December 2025 (164 yes / 6 no / 7 abstentions).
- United Nations Secretary-General (2023): A New Agenda for Peace, Policy Brief 9.
- Heyns, Christof (2013): Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Lethal autonomous robotics and the protection of life. UN Doc. A/HRC/23/47.
- Holy See (2016 ff.): Statements to the GGE on LAWS, Geneva.