Statement by the Representative of the Delegation of the Russian Federation in explanation of vote on a draft resolution «Lethal autonomous weapons systems» L.77 in the First Committee of the 79th session of the UNGA, New York, 6 November, 2024

Unofficial translation

Madam Chair,

This year, as well as last year, Russia voted against the draft resolution “Lethal autonomous weapons systems” (L.77). In doing so, we also voted against its paragraphs PP1, PP9, PP10, PP13, OP7, OP8, OP9, OP10, OP11 and OP12, the contents of which we strongly disagree with, and abstained on all other paragraphs which were put on a separate vote.

We are convinced that the document pursues an unacceptable goal for us, which was also enshrined in UNGA resolution 78/241, to undermine the work of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE on LAWs) established within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). It is becoming increasingly clear that the main objective of the authors of this initiative is, in fact, to launch a parallel discussion track – under the pretext of ensuring inclusivity of discussions – this time in New York and with engagement of new participants.

We consistently proceed from the understanding that the CCW platform is the only optimal one for discussing the whole range of issues related to LAWs. This understanding is reaffirmed, inter alia, in the consensus-endorsed 11 Guiding Principles on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons System, as well as in the outcome document of the 6th CCW Review Conference (Geneva, December 13-17, 2021). The GGE brings together all key States engaged in active research and applications of new technologies in this area. This forum strikes an optimal balance between humanitarian concerns and the legitimate defense interests of countries with regard to the relevant weapons systems. The transfer of the discussions on the issue of LAWs to any other international fora, including to the UN, or the launching of parallel processes seems counterproductive at this stage.

In this connection, we do not see any “added value” from the informal consultations on the issue of LAWs in New York, as it is envisaged in OP9, for the discussion that has already been actively conducted for several years in the relevant GGE and that includes the entire possible range of issues, including legal, technical and military aspects of LAWs. On the contrary, additional informal consultations in an alternative venue could undermine the GGE's efforts to bring positions of the CCW States Parties closer together and find some consensus solutions. At the same time, the GGE format itself is inclusive and open also to States not parties to the CCW and various relevant international entities. All interested parties are welcome to participate in the work of the GGE, as it is provided for in the Rules of Procedure.

The inconsistent use of the term “lethal autonomous weapons systems” and “autonomous weapons systems” throughout the draft is also a matter of concern. The resolution could, among other things, provoke legal uncertainty and thus negatively affect the efforts within the GGE on LAWs to agree on a common characterization of this category of weapons.

We consistently oppose the language in the resolution that focuses primarily on “challenges”, “concerns” and “negative consequences” of LAWs on global international security. We are convinced that appropriate weapon systems can demonstrate much greater effectiveness than human operators in accomplishing their tasks and reduce the likelihood of errors and miscalculations. Consequently, any discussion on LAWs should be conducted in a balanced manner and take into account both the possible disadvantages and advantages of this category of weapons.

In this regard, we note draft resolution’s unwarranted emphasis on the role of human rights and ethical aspects in relation to LAWs. There is no basis for claiming that the principles of humanity, the requirements of public consciousness and human rights law alone can be regarded as the absolute and only sufficient condition for the introduction of restrictive and prohibitive regimes with regard to specific types of weapons.

We believe that international law, including IHL, is fully applicable to LAWs and does not need to be modernized or adapted in connection with their specific nature. We oppose any artificial prohibitions on the development and use of such systems and the technologies used to create them, as well as the imposition of certain artificial deadlines and, even more so, the prejudgment of the results of the ongoing multilateral efforts on the issue of LAWs.

For our part, we are ready to continue our active participation in the consideration of the modalities of application of existing international legal norms of IHL to such weapons systems within the framework of the relevant GGE on the CCW platform. We are convinced that the solution to all concerns regarding LAWs lies, first and foremost, in ensuring the good faith and full implementation of already existing international legally-binding norms.

Thank you.