CCW Report, Vol. 14, No. 1
GGE Informal Consultations Show Cautious Optimism and Remaining Concerns Over Elements for an Instrument on Autonomous Weapons
28 January 2026
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will
On 28 January 2026, the Chair of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), Ambassador Robert in den Bosch of the Netherlands, held an online informal consultation with observers to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). Observers include states that are not high contracting parties to the CCW, as well as international organisations and civil society groups. The Chair introduced changes his team made to the rolling text of elements for a possible instrument or other measures on LAWS, and highlighted his plans for the 2026 session of the GGE.
Changes to the rolling text
The Chair explained that the updated text limits changes to key topics where there was divergence during last year’s discussions. Some of the changes that the Chair highlighted during the informal consultations include, but are not limited to, the following:
Box I
- Adding “functionally,” replacing “user” with “operator,” replacing “death” with “loss of life;”
- Re-including “identify” along with “select and engage” and adding a new subparagraph A to try to address concerns that the inclusion of “identify” would lead to narrowing the scope of the characterisation of LAWS; and
- Removing text defining “lethal”.
Box II
- Moving the notion of context-appropriate human judgement and control (CAHJC) to Box III, because Box II focuses on existing international humanitarian law (IHL) obligations while Box III is about LAWS-specific obligations.
Box III
- Streamlining paragraphs and subparagraphs to avoid duplication;
- Adding CAHJC from Box II; and
- Detangling legal and ethical obligations.
Box IV
- Reorganising to address concerns that it diluted existing obligations;
- Adding subparagraphs to paragraph 4 to illustrate ways that states can ensure LAWS are understood;
- Using “prevent and mitigate” instead of “detect, correct or mitigate” in relation to bias; and
- Removing the specific reference to artificial intelligence (AI) models in relation to bias—not to exclude AI models but to make sure consideration isn’t limited to those.
Box V
- Modifying some parts to remove redundancies, including by combining paragraph 2 with former paragraphs 3 and 4.
Reactions from observers
Most of the participating observers welcomed the updated text and agreed that it provides a good basis for negotiations of an instrument on autonomous weapons. But some raised concerns with specific changes or elements that could undermine the strength of such an instrument.
A few participants urged strengthening the concept of CAHJC, in particular to emphasise that human judgement and control must always be retained in relation to a weapon systems’ critical functions.
A few raised concerns about the re-introduction of the term “identify” in Box I, arguing that the subparagraph addressing it isn’t adequate to resolve these concerns.
Some urged strengthening the link between algorithmic bias and IHL, especially in relation to the principle of distinction.
A few raised concerns that AI systems are continuously updated and thus this text should specify that developments and modifications to AI systems must lead to new training and technical support. Relatedly, there was some concern about the language around machine learning, including the reference to ensuring that mission parameters cannot be “significantly” modified without human intervention.
A few participants also noted that in this text, legal reviews, testing, and training are framed as recommendations, when they should be treated as obligations.
Some expressed concern with the loophole created in paragraph 4 of Box III, which allows for the development and acquisition of prohibited LAWS “for the purposes of training and the development of countermeasures.” The Chair clarified that this is derived from the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), but other participants pointed out this is substantively different given that the CCM is a legal instrument prohibiting a set of weapons, while this text is suggesting that it is acceptable to retain weapons that have been prohibited by IHL. One participant also noted that this paragraph only pulls some of the language from the CCM and leaves out other aspects such as reporting and transparency obligations. Thus, the participant argued, this paragraph is a partial representation of an imperfect model and should be removed.
Some participants also raised additional elements that should be included in the text, including an explicit prohibition on AWS that target people, also known as anti-personnel systems. One delegation also encouraged the inclusion of effective oversight over development of AWS and relevant supply chains, noting that design and development stages can have a direct impact on compliance with IHL.
Some participants noted that some previously agreed language on predictability, traceability, and reliability are missing in this text and should be included. One delegation emphasised that systems that don’t allow for meaningful human control or CAHJC should be prohibited, as should unpredictable systems.
Next steps
The first formal session of the GGE in 2026 will take place 2–6 March in Geneva. The Chair intends to move directly to consideration of the text, without any general debate. Delegations will be able to comment on each box, and then the Chair will ask them to focus on areas of divergence to develop compromises.
The current GGE mandate expires in 2026, thus the Chair said he hopes this text can be finalised and submitted to the CCW Review Conference in November to be taken forward there. He is urging delegations not to suggest new ideas or make objections at this point, but to think of solutions to advance this text.
[PDF] ()