New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

alia, to concerns about the inability of AWS to operate in adherence to IHL, various opponents are currently urging the UN to prohibit, or at the very least regulate, AWS by way of a new treaty. 16 Following a sustained period of pressure the UN General Assembly (UNGA) has even very recently adoptes its first ever resolution on AWS, 17 which identifies an “urgent need for the international community to address the challenges and concerns raised by autonomous weapons systems”. 18 The term AWS is, nevertheless, somewhat misleading because it is not used to identify a particular type of weapon. Instead, it is generally applied to any weapon that utilises AI to support its own decision-making processes. An AWS, simply put, is any weapon that can make its own decisions about who lives and who dies on a battlefield. There is no single widely recognised definition of AWS, which is a primary reason why it is also difficult to determine their overall lawfulness (or not). Nonetheless, a popular definition posited by the ICRC provides that an AWS is any weapon system that can, select and apply force to targets without human intervention. After initial activation or launch by a person, an autonomous weapon system self-initiates or triggers a strike in response to information from the environment received through sensors and on the basis of a generalized “target profile” . 19 Even for the non-expert, a brief analysis of the above text is likely to reveal it has the potential to encapsulate a wide variety of weapons (future and, arguably, existing). 20 These might include, for example, anything from smart grenade (which, for example, might be capable of choosing not to detonate based upon detecting the presence of civilians), 21 to hunter-killer drones (which might continuously circle the globe in search of ‘high value’ targets), 22 and even humanoid robots such as the infamous A useful starting point is provided by NGO’s such as, Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, ‘Stop Killer Robots’ ; Amnesty International, ‘Global: A critical opportunity to ban killer robots – while we still can’ (2 November 2021) ; Article 36, ‘Autonomous Weapons’ ; and Wareham M, ‘Killer Robots’ ( Human Rights Watch ) each accessed 31 October 2023. 16 See e.g., UN News, ‘UN and Red Cross call for restrictions on autonomous weapon systems to protect humanity’ ( UN News , 5 October 2023) accessed 31 October 2023. 17 UNGA,ResA/C.1/78/L.56(2023) accessed 7 November 2023. AWS are also referred to as Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS), Lethal Robotics, and Killer Robots amongst others. 18 Ibid., UNGA Res. L. 56. See also United Nations Press, ‘First Committee Approves New Resolution on Lethal Autonomous Weapons, as Speaker Warns “An Algorithm Must Not Be in Full Control of Decisions Involving Killing”’ ( United Nations Press , 1 November 2023). 19 ICRC position on autonomous weapon systems ( ICRC , 12 May 2021) accessed 14 December 2023. 20 The point here is it depends on which definition of AWS you use. While some believe AWS are weapons of the future, some believe that they have existed in some basic form (such as anti-personnel mines) for decades. 21 Noting the IHL principle of proportionality, codified within API does not altogether prohibit civilians harms. See e.g., Arts. 51(5)(b) and 57 API, and ICRC Customary Rule 14, available at accessed 31 October 2023. 22 Where, if operating outside of an existing battlefield, which means that IHL would not apply, their use

17