en

Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Received 18.06.2025,
  • Revised 02.09.2025,
  • Accepted 29.09.2025
Download article Download article
Vol. 30, No. 3, 2025
  • autonomous weapons systems; artificial intelligence; meaningful human control; military accountability; legal regulation; national security; embedded legality
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-herald/3.2025.09
  • Pages 9-22

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technologies is reshaping the landscape of modern warfare, giving rise to autonomous weapons systems capable of operating with minimal or no human intervention. The study provided a comprehensive legal and policy analysis of the challenges posed by AWS to international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and global security. Based on doctrinal sources, state practice, and armed conflicts, including in Libya, Ukraine, and the Middle East, the study examined key issues such as distinction, proportionality, accountability, and the erosion of human control. The study assessed current international efforts, including discussions within the framework of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and outlines the growing normative consensus around the principle of meaningful human control. The study argued for a multi-layered regulatory approach, combining a legally binding international treaty with national legislative reforms, mandatory legal reviews, and transparency measures such as international registries and independent monitoring bodies. The study also proposed the development of testing standards for AWS and calls for a temporary moratorium on the use of fully autonomous lethal systems until appropriate legal safeguards are in place. In of the context of growing concerns regarding responsibility attribution and real-time legal compliance, the study introduced the concept of “embedded legality” as a forward-looking governance paradigm. This approach reframed compliance not merely as ex post legal review, but as a process of embedding international humanitarian law directly into the design architecture of AWS. The codification of legal principles such as distinction and proportionality into algorithmic decision-making was proposed as both a technical and normative safeguard. The article argued that this paradigm offered a viable pathway to operationalise IHL in increasingly autonomous systems and should be institutionalised through binding domestic and international standards. The study concluded that the law must correlate to technology: legal norms are essential to ensure that AI-enhanced military capabilities are governed by principles of humanity, accountability, and the rule of law. In an era of increasingly automated warfare, legal and ethical governance must remain paramount

References

[1] Arai, K., & Matsumoto, M. (2024). Public perceptions of autonomous lethal weapons systems. AI and Ethics, 4, 451-462. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105854.

[2] Article 36. (2013). Killer robots: UK government policy on fully autonomous weapons. Retrieved from https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Policy_Paper1.pdf.

[3] Asaro, P. (2012). On banning autonomous weapon systems: Human rights, automation, and the dehumanization of lethal decision-making. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 687-709. doi: 10.1017/S1816383112000768.

[4] Autonomous Weapons. (2025). The political landscape: How nations are responding to autonomous weapons in war. Retrieved from https://autonomousweapons.org/global-perspectives-on-regulation/.

[5] Bode, I. (2024). Emergent normativity: Communities of practice, technology, and lethal autonomous weapon systems. Global Studies Quarterly, 4(1), article number ksad073. doi: 10.1093/isagsq/ksad073.

[6] Boulanin, V., & Verbruggen, M. (2017). Mapping the development of autonomy in weapon systems. Solna: SIPRI.

[7] Chengeta, T. (2016). Accountability gap: Autonomous weapon systems and modes of responsibility in international law. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 45(1). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2755211.

[8] Christie, E.H., Ertan, A., Adomaitis, L., & Klaus, M. (2024). Regulating lethal autonomous weapon systems: Exploring the challenges of explainability and traceability. AI and Ethics, 4, 229-245. doi: 10.1007/s43681-023-00261-0.

[9] Clarke, K. (2024). Ukraine and the troubling future of A.I. warfare. Retrieved from https://www.org/politics-society/2024/07/18/ukraine-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems-cis-un-international.

[10] CSIS. (2020). The air and missile war in Nagorno-Karabakh: Lessons for the future of strike and defense. Retrieved from https://surl.li/qbtkvd.

[11] Docherty, B. (2014). The human rights implications of “killer robots”. Retrieved from https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2014/06/bonnie-docherty-autonomous-weapons/.

[12] European Commission. (2024). Exporting dual-use items. Retrieved from https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/help-exporters-and-importers/exporting-dual-use-items_en.

[13] Franceʼs national position submitted to the United Nations General Assembly on the Resolution No. 78/241 “Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems”. (2023). Retrieved from https://docs-library.unoda.org/General_Assembly_First_Committee_-Seventy-Ninth_session_%282024%29/78-241-France-EN.pdf.

[14] Garamone, J. (2023). DoD updates autonomy in weapons system directive. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3278065/dod-updates-autonomy-in-weapons-system-directive.

[15] Garcia, D. (2024). The AI military race: Common good governance in the age of artificial intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[16] Geneva Academy. (n.d.). Sending up a flare: Autonomous weapons systems proliferation risks to human rights and international security. Retrieved from https://surl.li/yozxlc.

[17] Gunawan, Y., Aulawi, M.H., Anggriawan, R., & Putro, T.A. (2022). Command responsibility of autonomous weapons under international humanitarian law. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), article number 2139906. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2022.2139906.

[18] Hammes, T.X. (2023). Autonomous weapons are the moral choice. Retrieved from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/autonomous-weapons-are-the-moral-choice.

[19] Heyns, C. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/749635.

[20] Hoppenbrouwers, A. (2024). The Global South and autonomous weapons controls. Retrieved from https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-11/features/global-south-and-autonomous-weapons-controls.

[21] House of Lords UK. (2024). Proceed with caution: Artificial intelligence in weapon systems. Report of Session 2023-24. London: Authority of the House of Lords.

[22] Human Rights Watch. (2012). Losing humanity: The case against killer robots. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/11/19/losing-humanity/case-against-killer-robots.

[23] International Committee of the Red Cross. (2016). Autonomous weapon systems: Implications of increasing autonomy in the critical functions of weapons. Retrieved from https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/4283-autonomous-weapons-systems.

[24] International Committee of the Red Cross. (2021). Autonomous weapons: The ICRC recommends adopting new rules. Retrieved from https://www.icrc.org/en/document/autonomous-weapons-icrc-recommends-new-rules.

[25] Le Poidevin, O. (2025). Nations meet at UN for “killer robot” talks as regulation lags. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/nations-meet-un-killer-robot-talks-regulation-lags-2025-05-12.

[26] Nasu, H. (2021). The Kargu-2 autonomous attack drone: Legal & ethical dimensions. Retrieved from https://lieber.westpoint.edu/kargu-2-autonomous-attack-drone-legal-ethical.

[27] Netherlands Government. (2022). Letter to Parliament about autonomous weapon systems. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/documents/publications/2022/10/10/letter-to-parliament-autonomous-weapon-systems.

[28] Nnamdi, N., Eniola, B.O., & Abegunde, B. (2023). Examining Lethal Autonomous Weapons through the lens of international humanitarian law. Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 6(6), 329-338. doi: 10.36348/sijlcj.2023.v06i06.001.

[29] OʼGrady, S., Khudov, K., & Korolchuk, S. (2025). Ukraine scrambles to overcome Russiaʼs edge in fiber-optic drones. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/23/ukraine-russia-drones-fiberoptic-jamming/.

[30] Perrin, B. (2025). Lethal autonomous weapons systems & international law: Growing momentum towards a new international treaty. ASIL Insights, 29(1).

[31] Piller, C. (2003). Vaunted Patriot missile has a “friendly fire” failing. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-apr-21-war-patriot21-story.html.

[32] Qerimi, Q. (2024). Controlling lethal autonomous weapons systems: A typology of the position of states. Computer Law & Security Review, 59, article number 105854. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105854.

[33] Rosert, E., & Sauer, F. (2020). How (not) to stop the killer robots: A comparative analysis of humanitarian disarmament campaign strategies. Contemporary Security Policy, 42(1), 4-29. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1771508.

[34] Sancar, I.V. (2024). How can we design autonomous weapon systems? AI and Ethics, 5(2), 967-975. doi: 10.1007/s43681-024-00428-3.

[35] Sauer, F. (2020). Stepping back from the brink: Why multilateral regulation of autonomy in weapons systems is difficult, yet imperative and feasible. International Review of the Red Cross, 102(913), 235-259. doi: 10.1017/S1816383120000466.

[36] Schmitt, M.N. (2013). Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law: A reply to the critics. Harvard National Security Journal, 4.

[37] Sharkey, N. (2008). The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science, 322(5909), 1800-1801. doi: 10.1126/science.1164582.

[38] Shibolet. Law Firm. (2025). Developments in global trade controls: January – March 2025. Retrieved from https://www.shibolet.com/en/developments-in-global-trade-controls-january-march-2025/.

[39] Solon, O. (2016). Use of police robot to kill Dallas shooting suspect believed to be first in US history. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas.

[40] Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x.

[41] The Associated Press. (2022). San Francisco supervisors bar police robots from using deadly force for now. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1141129944/san-francisco-deadly-robots-police.

[42] United Nations Secretary-General. (2023). Our Common Agenda Policy Brief #9: A New Agenda for Peace. Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/default/files/document/files/2024/08/our-common-agenda-policy-brief-new-agenda-peace-en.pdf.

[43] United Nations Security Council. (2021). Final report of the Panel of Experts on Libya established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) addressed to the President of the Security Council. Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/S/2021/229.

[44] United Nations. (2019). Report of the 2019 session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. Geneva: UNODA.

[45] United Nations. (2020). Working paper: Towards a framework on LAWS. Geneva: UNODA.

[46] United Nations. (2021). Report of the 2021 session of the Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS. Geneva: UNODA.

[47] United Nations. (2022). Final report of the 2022 session of the GGE on LAWS. Geneva: UNODA.

[48] United Nations. (2024). Lethal autonomous weapons systems: Report of the Secretary-General. Retrieved from https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/154/32/pdf/n2415432.pdf.

[49] Vuyk, K.E. (2024). Why outlaw LAWS?: An argument for a probationary period for lethal autonomous weapons systems under meaningful human control. University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal, 9(1), article number 1.

[50] Wareham, M. (2021). Ringing the alarm on killer robots. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/20/ringing-alarm-killer-robots.

[51] Watts, T.F.A., & Bode, I. (2024). Machine guardians: The Terminator, AI narratives and US regulatory discourse on lethal autonomous weapons systems. International Studies, 59(1). doi: 10.1177/00108367231198155.

[52] Wilner, A., & Babb, C. (2021). New technologies and deterrence: Artificial intelligence and adversarial behaviour. In F. Osinga & T. Sweijs (Eds.), NL ARMS Netherlands annual review of military studies 2020 (pp. 401-417). Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6265-419-8_21.

[53] Winter, E. (2022). The compatibility of autonomous weapons with the principles of international humanitarian law. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 27(1). doi: 10.1093/jcsl/krac001.

[54] Zurek, T., Kwik, J., & van Engers, T. (2023). Model of a military autonomous device following Humanitarian Law. Ethics and Information Technology, 25, article number 15. doi: 10.1007/-023-09682-1.