Today we’re discussing a very important question in our view, a question that is related to questions of compliance with the provisions of IHL during the entire life-cycle of such weapon systems that we consider to be lethal autonomous weapons systems. We believe that at all stages of the life-cycle of these weapon systems what is necessary and important is to ensure full compliance with the main principles of international humanitarian law, namely selectivity, proportionality, humanity, and military necessity.
We believe that when legal reviews are carried out under Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it is necessary to pay special attention to the following aspects. First, to make sure that the technical characteristics of the weapon systems being developed make it possible to use them on a selective basis in terms of the objectives that are acceptable under IHL. Number two, during legal reviews, it is necessary to make sure that algorithms that are part of such weapons systems are predictable, and therefore the employment and functioning of such systems during military action is marked by high levels of predictability. And number three, it is necessary to determine that when targets are being identified by such weapons systems, it is possible to comply with Article 57 of the Additional Protocol.
This means that once we have reliable information in connection with this or that weapon system that will belong to the category of a lethal autonomous weapon system, the criteria that I mentioned above can be used to say that it is lawful to use such a system during military action with full compliance with IHL. The Russian Federation supports the idea about the voluntary exchange of best practices related to implementation of Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, taking into account the considerations of national security and trade secrets.
I also like to raise additional questions that we believe are very important as we continue our discussions or as we try to move towards reaching certain understandings related to the legal reviews to be carried out. We find that it is important to take into account such aspects as the possibility, necessity and advisability of carrying out legal reviews. It is clear that we can’t expect to carry out legal reviews at every stage of such weapons system — it won’t be possible, advisable and necessary to do that. We also find very important the question that was raised here related to the periodic nature or the need to carry out additional legal reviews after such weapons systems are already part of the military because indeed, as a result of the employment of such weapons, the need may arise to modernise, improve such weapons systems or upgrade them in any other way. So the question of legal reviews at the stage of modernising such weapons systems is something that we believe to be very important.
We also believe that we need to discuss the question of the qualifications of the individuals that carry out legal reviews and we believe legal reviews cannot simply remain something legal. We think that a legal review also implies that these individuals have the necessary technical skills or technical understanding of the technical features of these weapons systems. A legal review cannot be carried out separately from the technical decisions that were used in order to develop a particular weapon system. And, of course, obviously, those who carry out legal reviews, together with a technical analysis of the systems being developed, to see whether they comply with IHL, these individuals also have to have excellent skills in terms of their understanding of international humanitarian law.
Now on the question of best practices and the exchange of best practices, here I would once again point out that the Russian Federation is in favour of having such voluntary exchanges. Yet at the same time, we believe that the effectiveness and the value added related to such practices or such exchanges to a large extent will depend on a common understanding of both the definition of the systems that are considered to be LAWS but also this will depend on their technical characteristics. Otherwise, if we do not have such a common understanding of the definition and characteristics of such systems, then this will mean that exchange best practices will be not very effective and will not be very useful.
And my last point: we fully agree with your idea, Mr. Chairman, that when we carry out legal reviews, we must take into account not just legal questions, but also we should keep ethical aspects in mind as we develop and employ, especially when we employ or use lethal autonomous weapon systems. And you were correct in pointing out that these ethical aspects are indeed the foundation of international humanitarian law. And this is why we believe that carrying out legal reviews to see whether weapon systems that are being developed are in compliance with IHL automatically provide for the inclusion of ethical questions in such work. And this is why to give special focus or an emphasis on these questions is not really advisable because, since we are talking about international humanitarian law, this means that we are talking about ethical aspects, when we are dealing with the development and employment of any weapons systems.
Statement by the Russian Federation under agenda item 5, topic 5 (GGE LAWS, 9 March 2023) 11:53:10 (interpretation)
