In Geneva, a crucial phase of the LAWS talks underway under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons runs through September, with 128 states weighing whether a non-binding text can chart a path toward future prohibitions and strict regulations.

Since 2014, discussions under the CCW have sought to ban LAWS that fail to comply with international law and to regulate others, yet no binding standards exist today.

Advocates warn that delaying action risks regulators falling behind rapid AI and weapon tech, while opponents like the US and Russia argue existing international law suffices and resist new binding instruments.

Geopolitical tensions color the talks, including recent European withdrawals from the landmine ban in response to Russian threats, complicating consensus.

A split persists: the United States and Russia oppose new binding instruments, arguing current laws are enough, while other states push for rules to close accountability gaps in international humanitarian law.

There are concerns that accountability gaps in IHL drive calls for new rules, though some contend IHL already binds states and individuals, not machines.

The Rolling Text in Geneva emphasizes context-appropriate human judgment and control so systems that identify, select, and engage targets operate under human oversight to align with IHL, though consensus on non-binding elements remains elusive.

AI-assisted semi-autonomous weapons raise broad concerns across conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Iran, and the Gulf, with IHL applying to LAWS but binding standards still largely missing.

The CCW’s November Review Conference could launch negotiations for a binding protocol after Geneva, but failure to reach agreement may prompt some states to pursue a separate treaty elsewhere.

UN Secretary-General’s goal for a legally binding LAWS instrument this year is viewed as unlikely by the chair given progress and consensus hurdles at Geneva.

The chair of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts warns that delaying regulation could let fast-moving technology outrun governance.

Overall, negotiators face a persistent division over binding versus non-binding approaches, with the central question remaining how to ensure compliance with IHL while addressing accountability for autonomous systems.