Madame Chair, Excellencies, Members of the Committee, dear colleagues, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to brief the UN Disarmament Commission in my capacity as Chair of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE LAWS).

• The GGE LAWS was formally established under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 2017.

• The Group has been working for seven years now and has discussed a great number of very substantive and significant topics related to addressing emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapon systems.
• However, much has changed in those seven years. The use of AI in the military domain and other technologies that enable the development of weapon systems that can operate with limited, or even no, human intervention are being developed at a rapid pace. For that reason, the eyes of the international community are now upon us and counting on the GGE LAWS to achieve concrete results during its present mandate.

On the present mandate

• This mandate was decided by the 2023 Meeting of the High Contracting Parties (HCP) of the CCW and reads “the Group is to further consider and formulate, by consensus, a set of elements of an instrument, without prejudging its nature, and other possible measures to address emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapon systems, taking into account the example of existing Protocols within the Convention, proposals presented by High Contracting Parties and other options related to the normative and operational framework on emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapon systems, building upon the recommendations and conclusions of the Group, and bringing in expertise on legal, military, and technological aspects.”
• The Group is expected to submit a report to the Seventh Review Conference of the CCW in 2026 and should complete its work as soon as possible, preferably before the end of 2025, and I as Chair will update the annual meeting of the High Contracting Parties on the work of the Group.
• In contrast to prior mandates, the current mandate does not task the Group with finding agreement on a yearly report to the CCW, leaving us with more time to discuss the matters that are at the core of our mandate. We should make the most of this opportunity.

On the run up to the first session in 2024

• In the months leading up to the first session of 2024, extensive informal consultations were held. During those informal consultations, High Contracting Parties shared different views and ideas on how best to move ahead and on how to fulfil the mandate in the best possible way. Important to recall here that the High Contracting Parties expressed a clear willingness and even eagerness to address substantial issues and work towards fulfilling the mandate of the Group.
• I have done my utmost to reflect those ideas, concerns and suggestions while designing the indicative timetable and the further programme for this first session and beyond.
• Prior to the first session, I circulated an indicative timetable to better organize the work of the Group, containing the following topics: (1) Characterizations and definitions; (2) Application of international humanitarian law (IHL), including the relation of IHL with the concept of human control, judgement and/or involvement; (3) Risk mitigation and confidence-building measures.
• With the aim of making concrete progress during the first session regarding these three topics, I invited delegations to provide their replies to a set of guiding questions corresponding to each of the three topics. The answers to those questions were then compiled in a document shared with the Group before the first session.
• This first session of the Group in 2024 was held in Geneva from 4 – 8 March and the constructive discussions showed a considerable degree of common understanding among the High Contracting Parties of the issues at stake. During this session the Group also benefited from the valuable contributions of international organizations, civil society and academia.
• After the general statements, summaries of the replies to the guiding questions provided by High Contracting Parties under each topic were shared on-screen for consideration by the Group and to support the discussions.
• My remarks today on the outcome of the first session are based on the Chair’s summary that was circulated as CCW/GGE.1/2024/WP.6 on 3 April 2024.

On the characterization of LAWS

• Most delegations welcomed exchanges on this aspect and emphasized the need to have clarity on characterizations and/or definitions of LAWS to advance the Group’s work. Many participants stated that it was not possible to achieve the goal of the Group if there did not exist at least a basic common understanding on the weapon systems which would be prohibited and/or regulated under a possible future instrument. Overall, while some delegations insisted on having a precise definition of LAWS, for others a general characterization was sufficient for the Group to make further progress. Still some other delegations were of the view that neither a definition nor a characterization were needed in order to discuss future measures, including prohibitions and regulations. In my view, it would be worthwhile to further develop, at least, a common understanding of what LAWS are, so that we could work from the same page regarding the scope of our work.

On the application of international law, in particular IHL

• From the discussion it became clear we can make a distinction between three levels or” boxes” that we need to further discuss:

>We should reach a common understanding on how existing IHL applies;

> What the practical measures are to ensure that LAWS are used in compliance with existing IHL and, in view of the foregoing;

> Discuss the need for any new law.

• Most delegations reaffirmed that existing IHL applies fully to LAWS. Notwithstanding, differences remained among delegations regarding whether new law is needed. Some delegations were of the view that current IHL is sufficient to deal with any possible challenges and risks raised by LAWS. Others argued that even though existing IHL rules and principles apply to LAWS and must consequently be observed by States, new IHL rules must be defined by the Group to address all potential risks associated with LAWS. Moreover, some delegations who saw current IHL as being sufficient considered that a new instrument was not needed, while others believe that a new instrument would be useful to specify how current IHL applies and/or to create new law.

On risks and risk mitigation measures regarding LAWS

• Most delegations stated that it was necessary to clearly identify which kinds of risks the Group was discussing, to then address them comprehensively through mitigation measures. Several categories of risks were highlighted by participants, such as humanitarian, ethical, security and geopolitical, as well as technical and system security risks.

On the way ahead

• In order to maintain the momentum of the constructive and fruitful discussions in March, an intensive intersessional programme has been established to make good use of the time between the first and second session which will be held from 26 - 30 August 2024 in Geneva.
• A letter containing the intersessional programme was sent out on 3 April 2024 (together with the Chair’s summary of the first session).
• In May and June there will be intersessional informal consultations on characterizations and definitions and on the application of IHL. These topics cover some of the core questions regarding LAWS. The goal of these intersessional informal consultations is to help facilitate the formal continuation of our discussion during the second session in August.
• I sincerely hope that the growing attention for LAWS, not least because of the developments we are now seeing on the battlefield, will energize our discussion and keep everyone engaged and convinced of the importance of fulfilling the mandate of the Group.

Madame Chair, this concludes my briefing, thank you for giving me the floor.