Updated October 15 2020 International Discussions Concerning Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems Lethal autonomous weapon systems LAWS or weapons designed to independently select and engage targets without the need for manual human control could enable military operations in communications-degraded or -denied environments where traditional systems may not be able to operate LAWS are not yet in widespread development However as technology advances—particularly artificial intelligence AI —a larger number of countries may consider developing and operating LAWS This could hold potential implications for congressional oversight defense investments military concepts of operations treaty-making and the future of warfare As has been the case throughout history incorporation of new technology into weapons systems creates a number of potential legal ethical strategic and operational problems For this reason some members of the international community seek through international discussions to constrain—if not ban—LAWS What Are LAWS Definitions No single universally accepted definition of LAWS is used in international discussions However Department of Defense Directive 3000 09 which establishes U S policy on autonomy in weapons systems defines LAWS as “weapon system s that once activated can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator ” This definition’s principal characteristic then is the role of the human operator with regard to target selection and engagement decisions Other countries such as the United Kingdom however have grounded their definition of LAWS on different characteristics in particular the technological sophistication of the weapon system such that LAWS are considered to be weapon systems capable of human-level cognition Still others do not believe that a definition of LAWS is required—or desirable—for international discussions Despite these differences most parties to the LAWS discussions generally agree that the defining features of LAWS include full autonomy no manual human control of the system and the potential to produce lethal effects Status Although the pursuit of LAWS is not yet widespread some analysts have argued that Israel’s Harpy loitering munition—which the weapon’s manufacturer IAI describes as being fully autonomous—qualifies Israel has exported the Harpy to Chile China India South Korea and Turkey Similarly Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has noted that Chinese manufacturer Ziyan has advertised a fully autonomous system the Blowfish A3 helicopter drone which it has reportedly exported to the Middle East 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 International Forum for LAWS Discussions The international community examines the implications of LAWS in discussions held primarily under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons CCW a multilateral arms control agreement to which the United States became a party in 1982 The CCW’s purpose is to “ban or restrict the use of specific types of weapons that are considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to affect civilians indiscriminately ” Since 2014 the CCW has convened annual meetings of States Parties observers and members of civil society to discuss the legal ethical technological and military facets of LAWS These meetings were elevated in 2017 from informal Meetings of Experts to a formal Group of Government Experts GGE After each session of the GGE the session’s chair produces a draft report that details session proceedings and offers conclusions and recommendations for future work States Parties then adopt the final report by consensus In 2018 States Parties additionally agreed to a set of “guiding principles” for LAWS States Parties agreed that international humanitarian law IHL would apply to LAWS that humans must remain responsible for decisions about the use of force and that states must consider the risks of LAWS acquisition by or proliferation to terrorists Table 1 State Stances on Preemptive LAWS Ban Support Algeria Guatemala Argentina Holy See Austria Iraq Bolivia Jordan Brazil Mexico Chile Morocco Colombia Namibia Costa Rica Nicaragua Cuba Pakistan Djibouti Panama Ecuador Peru Egypta Uganda El Salvador Venezuela Ghanaa Zimbabwea Opposeb Australia France Germany Israel New Zealand Russia South Korea Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States Otherc China Source CRS consolidation of data from multiple sources Notes CCW discussions on LAWS exclude existing weapons systems Therefore States Parties consider any potential LAWS ban to be preemptive a State is not party to the CCW b States that oppose a preemptive LAWS ban do not necessarily share the same alternative approach to managing LAWS c See section below on China https crsreports congress gov International Discussions Concerning Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems Debate About Approaches to Managing LAWS The CCW has considered proposals to ban LAWS as well as proposals to regulate or issue political declarations about them CCW States Parties have not reached a consensus on which of these approaches if any it will adopt Arguments Supporting Preemptive LAWS Ban In addition to the states listed in Table 1 approximately 165 nongovernmental organizations have called for a preemptive ban on LAWS due to ethical concerns These include a perceived lack of accountability for use and a perceived inability to comply with the proportionality and distinction requirements of IHL Some analysts have also raised concerns about LAWS’s potential operational risks For example as Center for a New American Security analyst Paul Scharre has noted risks could arise from “hacking enemy behavioral manipulation unexpected interactions with the environment or simple malfunctions or software errors” and could potentially result in civilian or noncombatant casualties Although such risks could be present in automated systems they could be heightened in autonomous systems in which the human operator would be unable to physically intervene to terminate engagements—potentially resulting in wider-scale or more numerous instances of fratricide civilian casualties or other unintended consequences Those supporting a preemptive ban on LAWS have additionally appealed to the Martens Clause which appears in the 1899 Hague Convention preamble and states that weapons use should conform to the “principles of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience ” These analysts believe that LAWS contravene that requirement however others have noted that the Martens Clause has not been used previously to ban a weapons system and furthermore that the legal status of the Martens Clause is questionable and instead constitutes “merely a recognition of ‘customary international law ’” Arguments Opposing Preemptive LAWS Ban A number of countries have voiced their opposition to a preemptive ban on LAWS These countries have noted the potential military utility of LAWS which could operate in communications-degraded or -denied environments where traditional systems may not be able to operate LAWS could also potentially enable new concepts of operations such as swarming in which large formations of autonomous vehicles could be deployed to overwhelm defensive systems Countries opposing a preemptive ban have additionally noted the potential humanitarian benefits of LAWS which may be able to “strike military objectives more accurately and with less risk of collateral damage or civilian casualties” than traditional systems These countries contend that human operators will remain accountable for the deployment of the systems and for ensuring that the systems’ use complies with IHL Finally some countries are concerned that a preemptive ban on LAWS could stymie research into technologies that may provide civilian benefits e g elder care robots Alternative Approaches to Managing LAWS Other states have proposed that the CCW instead focus on enhancing transparency in weapons development and sharing best practices for weapons review processes France and Germany for example have proposed issuing a nonlegally binding political declaration that would affirm that international humanitarian law applies to LAWS and that “ States Parties share the conviction that humans should continue to be able to make ultimate decisions with regard to the use of lethal force and should continue to exert sufficient control over lethal weapons systems they use ” France and Germany have additionally proposed the establishment within the CCW of a consultative committee of technical experts to advise states on relevant technological developments Positions of the United States Russia and China Although the CCW operates by consensus the United States Russia and China—as leading military powers—are likely to be particularly influential in determining the trajectory of international discussions of LAWS United States The U S delegation to the CCW has consistently opposed any preemptive ban on LAWS arguing that LAWS could potentially provide a humanitarian benefit and that existing IHL is sufficient to govern the development and use of LAWS Russia The Russian delegation to the CCW has also opposed a preemptive ban on LAWS noting that LAWS could “ensure the increased accuracy of weapon guidance on military targets while contributing to lower rate of unintentional strikes against civilians and civilian targets ” It also argues there is no proper legal precedent for a preemptive international ban on an entire class of weapons China The Chinese delegation has stated that China supports a ban on the use—but not development—of LAWS which it defines to be indiscriminate lethal systems that do not have any human oversight and cannot be terminated China is the only country that defines LAWS in this manner and analysts note that such a weapon would be unable to comply with IHL and therefore is inherently illegal Some analysts have argued that China is maintaining “strategic ambiguity” about its position on LAWS Potential Questions for Congress  Is the executive branch keeping Congress adequately informed about developments both international and domestic concerning LAWS and their regulation  What role should the United States play in UN CCW discussions of LAWS Should the United States support the status quo propose a political declaration or advocate regulation of or a ban on LAWS  To what extent are potential U S adversaries developing LAWS How if at all should this affect U S LAWS research and development or the United States’ UN CCW position on LAWS Kelley M Sayler Analyst in Advanced Technology and Global Security Michael Moodie Assistant Director and Senior Specialist in Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade https crsreports congress gov IF11294 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