Next week, the United Nations headquarters in Geneva will host international discussions on autonomous weapons—often referred to as “killer robots”—and the legal and ethical questions they raise regarding the delegation of decisions on the use of lethal force to machines, without human intervention. The talks will involve 128 nations, reflecting a growing international consensus in favor of imposing restrictions on such weapons, though some countries—most notably the United States—remain opposed.
The discussions aim to reach an agreement on launching negotiations for a legally binding instrument to regulate these systems, which are capable of identifying and attacking targets without direct human involvement. This initiative has gained urgency due to the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and the deployment of autonomous technologies in armed conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Since 2013, there have been ongoing international efforts to establish legally binding restrictions on these weapons. These efforts are driven by concerns over their potential proliferation—fueled by relatively low production costs—as well as the risks of indiscriminate targeting, a lack of sufficient human oversight, and violations of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, errors committed by these systems on the battlefield could have direct, life-altering consequences for both civilians and combatants.
In recent months, there has been a surge in international activity on this front. In early September, Brazil—speaking on behalf of 47 nations—and Algeria—representing African states—issued a call for the implementation of legal restrictions on the use of these weapons. On October 22, 50 countries emphasized the need to strengthen human oversight of these technologies. Furthermore, on October 29, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution—supported by 163 nations—calling for discussions on establishing rules to govern autonomous weapons. Five countries voted against the resolution—the United States, Russia, Israel, North Korea, and Belarus—while nine others, including Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia, abstained.
Despite broad international support, positions remain divided regarding the nature of the required legal framework and the timeline for its development. While some nations and international organizations advocate for a binding agreement, China has expressed support for such an approach only when conditions are deemed appropriate; meanwhile, the United States has proposed a five-year process to draft a non-binding text. In contrast, civil society organizations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) are calling for a timeline that does not exceed one year.
The ICRC advocates for a ban on two categories of these weapons: systems whose effects are difficult to predict or fully control, and weapons designed or used to target humans directly—known as anti-personnel autonomous weapons. In 2023, UN Secretary-General António Guterres and ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric Egger called for a ban on their use by 2026—a demand that has also been reiterated by Pope Francis. In this context, there is a clear need for an international framework to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in the military sphere. Such a framework must ensure that decisions concerning human life and death remain subject to human oversight and accountability, thereby preventing unpredictable consequences for humanity.
The challenges extend beyond legal and political disputes to include procedural friction within the United Nations—specifically, a disagreement between Russia and European nations over raising the issue of the war in Ukraine during the Geneva conference, which threatens to obstruct the proceedings.
Given the difficulty of reaching an international consensus to launch negotiations for a binding agreement, civil society organizations are proposing an alternative path: shifting the matter to the UN General Assembly, where decisions can be made by a majority vote. Ultimately, the primary challenge facing the international community remains the establishment of clear rules that keep pace with technological advancement, protect human dignity, and ensure adherence to the principles of international humanitarian law.