As of 1 October 2026. Information only, not legal advice – see the disclaimer.
| Full title | UN and CCW processes on lethal autonomous weapons systems |
|---|---|
| Type | Intergovernmental process: Group of Governmental Experts under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW); UN General Assembly resolutions |
| Adopted by | High Contracting Parties to the CCW; UN General Assembly |
| Adopted | GGE on LAWS established by the Fifth CCW Review Conference (2016); current mandate 2024–2026 decided in November 2023; GA resolutions 78/241 (22 December 2023), 79/62 (2 December 2024), 80/57 (1 December 2025) |
| Legal status | No specific treaty on autonomous weapons systems; existing international humanitarian law applies. The CCW (128 High Contracting Parties according to UNODA, March 2025) is a binding treaty; GGE outcomes and GA resolutions are non-binding |
| Official text | UNODA Meetings Place – CCW GGE on LAWS (2026) · UN Doc. A/RES/80/57 |
| Subject area | Artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons; UN processes and institutions |
Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) are discussed in two UN-related forums. Since 2017 a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) under the CCW has met in Geneva; in 2019 the CCW High Contracting Parties endorsed eleven guiding principles, including that international humanitarian law applies fully to all weapons systems and that human responsibility for decisions on the use of weapons systems must be retained. Under its 2024–2026 mandate the GGE was tasked to further consider and formulate, by consensus, a set of elements of an instrument, without prejudging its nature. In parallel, the UN General Assembly has adopted annual resolutions on LAWS since 2023. The topic is referred to in debates on human control over the use of force, accountability, and the application of IHL to AI-enabled military systems.
The rolling text discussed in 2026 characterises a lethal autonomous weapon system as a combination of one or more weapons and functionally integrated technological components that can identify, select and engage a target. States differ on whether a future instrument should be legally binding and on the scope of prohibitions and regulations. A group of States supports the negotiation of a legally binding instrument, in or outside the CCW; other States, including the United States and the Russian Federation, have opposed binding requirements such as a standard of “meaningful human control” or have preferred the CCW as the only forum. The UN Secretary-General and the ICRC have called for a legally binding instrument. See laws_treaty.