Will the world ban autonomous weapon systems?

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in our daily lives, its application in military operations is also expanding rapidly. This trend is being accelerated by ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, where militaries are exploring the advantages AI-enabled systems offer in decision-making and targeting. Against this backdrop, a pressing question is emerging on the global stage: Will the world ban autonomous weapon systems (AWS)?

A Growing Sense of Urgency

On 12–13 May 2025, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) convened member states in New York to address the ethical, legal, and humanitarian concerns associated with AWS. This high-level meeting builds on growing momentum within the international community, complementing ongoing negotiations under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).

In the same week, the Chair of the CCW’s Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), H.E. Robert in den Bosch, released a revised “rolling text” aimed at advancing negotiations towards a potential international instrument in line with the Group’s mandate.

Calls for a Binding Treaty

During the UNGA meeting, UN Secretary-General António Guterres delivered a clear message via video, declaring that autonomous weapons are "politically unacceptable, morally repugnant, and should be banned." He urged states to pursue a legally binding treaty by the end of 2026 to prohibit or regulate these systems. His remarks highlighted the importance of UNGA Resolution A/RES/79/62, adopted on 2 December 2024 and supported by 166 states, which called for a comprehensive approach to address the challenges posed by AWS and ensure compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

Although the May UNGA meeting did not result in a new resolution, it served as a critical platform for states to reaffirm their commitment to addressing AWS-related risks and to explore potential treaty pathways. The outcome demonstrates a growing international consensus on the need for regulation.

Is an AWS Treaty Realistically Within Reach?

Despite strong calls for action, the path to a binding international treaty on AWS remains uncertain. Scholars Hitoshi Nasu and Robert McLaughlin have outlined several preconditions that tend to enable successful treaty-based regulation of new weapons technologies. Let’s examine how these apply to the AWS context:

1. Consensus is not required for negotiations.
   The CCW process operates by consensus, which has often delayed progress. A non-consensus process, similar to those used in the Oslo Process (on cluster munitions) and the Mine Ban Treaty, could allow faster movement by an initial core group of states, even if it sacrifices early universality.

2. A catalytic event that escalates public condemnation.
   The 2006 Israeli use of cluster munitions in Lebanon is widely viewed as the tipping point that led to the Oslo Convention. While AWS have not triggered a similar event, Israel’s reported use of AI-driven decision-support systems (e.g., Lavender and Gospel) during the Gaza conflict has sparked widespread international criticism. Whether this is sufficient to catalyse a treaty process remains to be seen.

3. Active NGO advocacy.
   A range of non-governmental organisations, including the ICRC and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, are actively promoting regulation of AWS. Their involvement mirrors successful advocacy efforts in previous disarmament campaigns such as those resulting in the Oslo and Ottawa Conventions.

4. Diminished military utility
   Treaties banning anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions succeeded partly because many states saw limited military value in retaining them. This does not appear to be the case with AWS. On the contrary, many states—including the United States, China, Russia, Israel, India, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Australia—are heavily investing in their development. As such, this condition is far from being met, and these states are unlikely to support a ban, particularly under a non-consensus model.

5. A pre-existing forum for negotiations
   The CCW provides a platform for AWS discussions, but its consensus-based nature has led some to consider alternative venues. The 2024 Vienna Conference on AWS exemplifies growing interest in a separate treaty process.

Where Do We Stand?

At present, perhaps only two or three of the Nasu and McLaughlin’s five preconditions for a successful treaty process are currently in place. While international pressure is growing, particularly through forums like the UNGA and CCW, the road to a legally binding instrument remains complex and politically fraught.

Yet the conversation is far from over. As AI continues to reshape modern warfare, the legal and ethical frameworks governing its use will become increasingly important, not only for governments but also for defence industries, technologists, and civil society.