THE LEGALITY OF AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: IS INDIA READY?

INTRODUCTION

The combination of robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced weaponry drove the development of the new generation of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) that can select and engage targets on their own. This sudden paradigm change from human-operated drones to autonomous equipment has driven violent international and domestic debates more forcefully on the intersection of such technology and current legal norms. Global and Indian law both wrestle with challenging problems: How are LAWS reconcilable with the core principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)? Are the current legal standards able to keep up with the new issues posed by autonomous weapons, particularly distinction, proportionality, and responsibility? While India seeks to be technology dominant, its defence research centres easily seek out AI capabilities, but India’s policy and legal approach to LAWS still remains unclear. This blog describes the LAWS law, analyses the global efforts and India’s readiness, and concludes with lines of a strong, legal approach towards this new threat.

WHAT ARE LETHAL AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS (LAWS)?

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems are advanced weapons platforms that can function with little or no direct human intervention. On activation, the systems can attack automatically and choose targets using sensor data and pre-programmed algorithms. In contrast with traditional weapons, in which a human commander has final authority over the application of deadly force, LAWS possibly can execute such action autonomously, posing extremely serious questions of how to guarantee continued adherence to legal, ethical, and humanitarian norms.

KEY FEATURES OF LAWS

• Function in land, air, sea, and space environments.
• Depend on AI to detect targets, evaluate threats, and respond.
• Can act independently without further human control after activation.
• They are often called “killer robots” in popular media.

CORE LEGAL DEBATES: LAWS AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

International Humanitarian Law, drawing largely from the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols^[1], aims to keep war within a human-containing cost. LAWS’ most fundamental principles are:

• Distinction: Requires parties at all times to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.
• Proportionality: Prohibits attacks likely to cause disproportionate harm to civilians about the military gain expected.^[2]
• Responsibility: Calls for responsibility towards individuals and states for breaching humanitarian law, i.e., war crimes.

IHL CHALLENGES ARISING FROM LAWS

1. Distinction

• Do algorithms reliably and accurately distinguish combatants and civilians during war, urban combat, or indiscriminate battlefields?
• AI systems as of today carry a high likelihood of failing, being prejudiced, and misidentifying^[3], with potential dangers that LAWS could indiscriminately target civilians.

2. Proportionality:

• No-Proportionality rulings involve subtle military necessity and civilian harm rulings. To leave it to a machine is to risk disproportionate or indiscriminate attack, a breach of IHL.

3. Accountability and Effective Human Control:

• If an autonomous weapon commits a violation, who is legally responsible? Is it the operator, the programmer, the military commander, or the state? Without clear, “meaningful human control,” accountability becomes diluted^[4] And enforcement mechanisms may lose efficacy,

These are the underlying rationales for tighter control or prohibition of LAWS in international law.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RESPONSES: THE UN CCW AND STATE POSITIONS

The United Nations Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) is the central platform where LAWS are being discussed.^[5] The CCW inhibits or prohibits weapons that are found to cause excessive harm or to be indiscriminate. Its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), since 2014, debated whether, and how, LAWS might be reconciled with existing legal norms, the requirement of “meaningful human control,” and possible approaches toward international control.

POSITIONS AT THE CCW

• Advocates Bans: Over 30 states supported by civil society organisations call for a legally binding world weapon ban treaty prohibiting LAWS^[6], further stating that life and human dignity cannot be traded and killer decisions cannot be made by machines.
• Calls for Moratoria or Regulation: A few states, mainly in the EU and Latin America, support a moratorium or strict regulations, bemoaning issues related to the speed of technological advancement and legal ambiguity.
• Cautious Pragmatism: America, Russia, China, and India favour negotiating less and emphasise the need to maintain technological flexibility because current laws would be adequate with adequate controls.

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND EMERGING NORMS

While incremental development does take place in treaty law, customary international law is made up of general state practice accepted as law.^[7] It is increasingly requiring the presence of “meaningful human control” as a bare minimum requirement for autonomous weapons use. Non-codification risks leaving in its wake enforcement lacunae and ethical vacuums.

INDIA’S APPROACH: LEGAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND ETHICAL DIMENSIONS

India, being an aspirational defence self-reliant country, is heavily investing in AI-driven warfare technologies.^[8] Within the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Remotely operated ground robots, unmanned aerial systems, and R&D of AI-driven targeting and surveillance are some of the projects. The focus is to make the Indian army modern and capable of competing with its strategic rivals.

INDIA’S ROLE AT INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS

India has not presented a clear public legal position on LAWS. CCW statements highlight:

• Compliance with International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions.
• Avoiding the stigmatisation of new technology too readily, but highlighting possible civilian uses.
• Multilateral negotiation and consensus-based answers, rather than unilateral prohibitions or premature regulation.

India typically advocates increased debate within the CCW, does not advocate prohibition and emphasises the dangers of the lack of agreed definitions, verification practices, and control measures.

DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

India does not have a defined law, policy guidelines, or standards of regulations for development, testing, or nationalisation of LAWS. In contrast to some Western countries that have developed constituted legal review procedures (e.g., the Article 36 weapons review under Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions), India’s preparation is in its very earliest stages. Internal review procedures must be put into place under urgency to satisfy both IHL and constitutional mandates.

LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT PATH SHOULD INDIA TAKE?

1. International Engagement

• Multilateral Leadership: India needs to champion the development of international law that will regulate LAWS^[9], with principles of universality drawn from IHL and international consensus.
• Solidarity for Meaningful Human Control: India can give strength to the argument that autonomous weapons should be subject to meaningful human judgment, amenable to distinction and proportionality tests.
• Support Concerned to Regulation: Instead of silence or opposition, India can assist in the development of protocols for transparency, accountability, and technical protection.

2. National Legal Strategies

• Enshrine Weapons Review Procedures: Pass national law mandating all new weapons, particularly those employing AI or autonomous systems, to pass rigorous legal, ethical, and technical vetting for IHL compliance.
• Institutionalise Mechanisms of Accountability: Establish mechanisms under which any abuse, negligence, or harm inflicted by LAWS may be traced and prosecuted, including state responsibility and criminal liability.
• Ethical and Technological Oversight Bodies: Establish independent review committees for review of the design and battlefield deployment of LAWS with representation from the legal, military, AI/robotics, and civil society sectors.

CONCLUSION

The legal context of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems is complicated since the technologies blur the distinction between human intent and machine action. Under existing international humanitarian law, there are some inherent doubts regarding whether and how LAWS can ensure the principles of distinction, proportionality, and accountability. India. With all its technological prowess and professed adherence to IHL, it has concluded but has no thorough policy or legislation to address the novel threats posed by autonomous weapons. As a regional power and forthcoming AI superpower, India cannot remain a spectator. Rather, it has to have a two-track approach: actively influence international legal norms and create in-depth national legislation. It would enable India to legislate technological advancement without sacrificing its legal responsibility and moral duty on the international scene. This is not merely a policy necessity; it is on the books of law and even more so on the ethos of humanity in the age of autonomous warfare.

Author(s) Name: Abinesh M (Vinayaka Mission’s Law School)

References:

^[1] Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287.

^[2] Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3, art 51(5)(b).

^[3] Noel Sharkey, ‘The Evitability of Autonomous Robot Warfare’ (2012) 94(886) International Review of the Red Cross 787.

^[4] Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, Mind the Gap: The Lack of Accountability for Killer Robots (2015) https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/04/09/mind-gap/lack-accountability-killer-robots  accessed 22 July 2025.

^[5] CCW, Meeting of the High Contracting Parties (2021) https://www.un.org/disarmament/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/ accessed 22 July 2025.

^[6] Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, Country Positions on Killer Robots (2022) https://www.stopkillerrobots.org  accessed 22 July 2025

^[7] ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law (ICRC 2005) Rule 1.

^[8] DRDO, Annual Report 2022–23 (Ministry of Defence, Government of India) https://www.drdo.gov.in  accessed 22 July 2025.

^[9] United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), The Weaponization of Increasingly Autonomous Technologies: Considering Ethics and Social Values (2017) https://unidir.org/publication/the-weaponization-of-increasingly-autonomous-technologies-considering-ethics-and-social-values/   accessed 22 July 2025.