Interventions by Ambassador Pankaj Sharma, Permanent Representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament during the First Session of the 2021 GGE on LAWS (3-13 August 2021)
Interventions by Ambassador Pankaj Sharma, Permanent Representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament during theFirst Session of the 2021 GGE on LAWS (3-13 August 2021)
3 August 2021
Discussion on Agenda Item 5 (a) – An exploration of the potential challenges posed by merging technologies in the area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems to International Humanitarian Law
Mr. Chairperson,
Today I am no better than a school kid who after one year of online classes is attending a real-life classroom. So, if I make some mistakes, please ignore them and I seek your indulgence in that respect.
Mr. Chairperson,
2. India congratulates you on assuming the Chairperson of the GGE on LAWS and expresses its sincere appreciation to you and your team for your efforts in the runup to this meeting, including the informal exchange of views. I also wish to thank the former Chairpersons Ambassador Karklins and Mr. Gjorgjinski for the significant contribution made by them to our work. I also don’t wish to miss out on this opportunity to express our appreciation to the CCW-ISU for their constant support and help to member States, especially in such challenging times due to the Covid Pandemic.
3. As noted by you and other colleagues, we have come a long way since the informal discussions on LAWS began seven years ago which eventually led to the current GGE, as it stands.
4. You mentioned that our main objective is to agree to recommendations by consensus. India will approach our deliberations from the approach outlined by you.
5. As pointed out by my delegation on the past occasions, the emerging technologies in the area of LAWS are expected to impact all domains of warfare. Most future generation weapon systems may possess advanced autonomy in respect of time and space with increased adaptability to the environment.
6. The lawfulness of weapon and weapon systems itself and whether it is qualified for use in an armed conflict is determined under the principles of International Humanitarian Law. To be lawful, a weapon must satisfy all the requirements i.e. the weapon must be able to discriminate between military and non-military targets, it must not cause unnecessary suffering and it must not be uncontrollable.
7. Autonomy in critical functions of weapon systems would impart more precision and accuracy and would avoid human errors. Such autonomy in parameters in LAWS must be compliant with IHL during the conceptualization, design and development of the systems. This has already been agreed by this GGE in the form of the guiding principles.
Mr. Chairperson,
8. While we have made considerable progress in our work a lot remains to be done. The first and foremost challenge for us is to have a common understanding on the definition of LAWS. Any attempt to consider, clarify and develop aspects of a normative and operational framework can only succeed if we understand and know the object of this proposed framework. Without a clear definition of LAWS, we will just keep groping in the dark.
9. In India’s view, the current session of the GGE must focus on arriving at a common definition of LAWS, which would then pave the way to consider, clarify and develop aspects of a normative and operational framework as manded by the 2019 report of the GGE.
10. My delegation will continue to constructively participate in our deliberations and assures you of its full support and cooperation, as you guide our important work.
Thank you,Mr. Chairperson.
3 August 2021
Discussion on Agenda Item 5 (b) – Characterization of the systems under consideration in order to promote a common understanding on concepts and characteristics relevant to the objectives and purposes of the Convention
Mr. Chairperson,
During the consideration of the last agenda items 5(a), my delegation referred to the need for a clear definition of LAWS, which can hardly be overemphasized.
A common definition of LAWS by member States will be the first logical step towards the characterization of the system, as both definition and characterization are interlinked.
While we seem to know a few characteristics of LAWS, such as autonomy and capabilities, they are neither exhaustive nor sufficient. One striking characteristic, that has emerged most clearly from our deliberations is that LAWS, once actuated, are capable of selecting and applying force to targets without any human interventions or control.
This principal or primary characteristic has compelled us to think about the need for a paradigm shift and approach to our work and treatment of LAWS.
France, for example, adopted an approach making a clear distinction between fully autonomous weapon systems and partial autonomous weapon systems.
India has always followed a forwardlooking approach. However, it is our friends from the distinguished delegation of the Netherlands, who gave us an alternate way of looking at issues, through their “Back to Basics” Working Paper at the Conference on Disarmament. In India’s view, we need a similar approach here in the GGE on LAWS, where we look at the complete absence of human intervention or control as the defining characteristic of LAWS. And if we do so, it will have a significant bearing on our future work, including on the guiding principles, which are based on human intervention or human-machine interaction. Paradoxically, the moment we inject the human element into LAWS, they cease to remain LAWS.
My delegation looks forward to actively participating in any discussions related to characterization of LAWS.
4 August 2021
Discussion on Agenda Item 5 (c) – Further consideration of the human element in the use of lethal force; aspects of human-machine interaction in the development, deployment and use of emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Most people in this room know that I am a person of simple mindand I don't understand very complex or complicated concepts. Therefore, I am actually finding myself at a loss in a definition free world today.And also, yesterday, we have been given this understanding that we can't exist in this GGE without definitions.
Now, as my able friend from the Russian Federation has mentioned, that without an universal and comprehensive definition, any instrument or any policy framework, will lead to a non-uniform, inconsistent, and differential application of law, I don't think we can afford to bring in that kind of subjectivity. We have also heard the arguments that a number of legal instruments do not have definitions. I concede to that point. However, my able friends also forget that there are more instruments than one without definitions, which have clearly defined definitions. And I'll give you the example of Chemical Weapons Convention, which has a very clear definition. I am only choosing one example here to clarify this concept. If the Chemical Weapons Convention did not have a definition of chemical weapon, I think one sixth of the humanity would be sitting behind jails. Because I have Clorox at home, I have been using chlorine for my swimming pool. And by that notion, if we did not define if chlorine is a chemical weapon or not, I would definitely be penalized and sitting behind jail if they have criminal penalties for that. Therefore, it is extremely important that we come out with a universal and comprehensive definition. Otherwise, it will be impossible for my country to undertake any commitments or obligations without even understanding what we are talking about, what these autonomous weapon systems are. I mean, how am I going to tell my armed forces or the weapon developers that which weapons, they should develop what they should not?
So Mr. Chairperson, I don't think we can make any progress. We can have a semblance of progress. We can delude ourselves that we are making progress. But I don't think that progress would mean anything, if we do not have a clear definition of LAWS. And I believe, as I had mentioned yesterday, we should focus our efforts on defining the autonomous weapon systems and then only come out with an enabling framework to evolve or develop policies and operational frameworks.
With that, I thank you Mr. Chairperson.
04 August 2021
Agenda Item 5(d) – Review of the Potential Military Applications of Related Technologies in the context of the Group's Work
(Intervention by Commodore Sudhir Singh, Director (Military Affairs), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India)
Mr. Chairperson,
The emerging technologies may be seen as a continuum in 'Revolution in Military Affairs' (RMA) in war fighting. The technology enabled weapon systems are replacing the soldier on the battlefield. In the recent conflicts, we have seen an increasing use of weaponised drones and rockets. It is evident that the emerging technologies in the area of LAWS will only make the future warfare faster and more complex.
We believe that risk mitigation would include rigorous testing and evaluation at the design, development and trials stage, laying down of standard operating procedures and training of commander and operator, including on international law / IHL on responsibility and engagements.
At this stage, when the LAWS may be still under development, potential military applications may include weapons which could be deployed from the air, land, sea and under-sea, which could operate in various terrains – mountains, plains, desert, jungles, swamps & marshes, riverine etc, and which could deliver lethal effects on humans, vehicles and other critical military infrastructure etc. These may include one or more systems working in tandem, exchanging information, or very light-weight units working in swarms, forming a complex information exchange network capable of carrying out a coordinated attack. The militaries would also invariably adopt AI, machine learning and other emerging technologies in non-lethal applications like communications, electronic warfare, logistics, decision support systems and many other fields.
Hence, member States should be encouraged to share good practices in the areas of human control and human-machine interaction in the emerging technologies pertaining to LAWS. The technology should not be stigmatized and any potential policy measures taken within the context of the CCW should not hamper progress in or access to peaceful uses of intelligent autonomous technologies.
Thank you Mr.Chairperson.
5 August 2021
Discussion on Agenda Item 5 (e) – Possible options for addressing the humanitarian and international security challenges posed by emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems in the context of the objectives and purposes of the Convention without prejudging policy outcomes and taking into account past, present and future proposals.
Mr. Chairperson,
India wishes to thank you, as well as the fellow members of the GGE for their active participation and contribution to our discussions. These have helped clarify a number of issues related to the emerging technologies in the area of LAWS and generated a better understanding of various aspects related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. These discussions have also proved and further reinforced the necessity and importance of the CCW as the appropriate framework for dealing with the issue of emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. We must continue our work within the auspices of the CCW, which has already been agreed to in the form of a guiding principle.
Mr. Chairperson,
As my delegation had noted earlier, our work has been severely hampered by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has not allowed us to make the expected progress. Therefore, we need to continue our work, based on the mandate contained in the report of the 2019 GGE. We have heard a number of calls for a legally binding instrument or a treaty. With due respect to all the delegations who have called for a legally binding instrument, India does not agree with their views. India believes that such proposals are premature, as we have not sufficiently explored various options for addressing the humanitarian and international security challenges posed by the emerging technologies in the area ofLAWS.As mentioned by the distinguished delegation of Israel, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to secure the participation of all the relevant experts. A case in point is our own legal expert following the GGE on LAWS, who could not attend, as the vaccine taken by her is not yet recognized here. What we need is a full participation of our relevant legal, technical and military experts, as mandated by the 2019 GGE report.
On substantive aspects, we need to work first and foremost on a comprehensive and universal definition of LAWS. In this regard, we welcome various views expressed by different delegations, especially by France and Finland. We have heard diverse views on the need of definition of LAWS. We were given the example of international terrorism, which is well understood, and therefore, does not require a definition. Ironically, the draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism tabled by India in the UN, more than a quarter century ago, in 1996, has not been adopted by the UN members, citing the lack of definition of international terrorism. These are the same countries, which take a diametrically opposite position here in the GGE on LAWS and argue that there is no need for a definition.
Mr. Chairperson,
India is not opposed to the characterization of LAWS. However, it should be with a view of arriving at a common understanding and a universal definition. As to the sufficiency of characterization, my delegation is aware of the position of various States in other forums. For example, when it comes to proposals for a legally binding treaty on PAROS, we are given to understand that it is not possible to have a treaty because we do not have a definition of a space weapon. That clearly indicates that mere characterization may not be sufficient for making progress on a legally binding treaty on PAROS. We, therefore, can conclude that a definition of LAWS is a prerequisite for any concrete progress to consider and develop a normative and operational framework.
Mr. Chairperson,
As of date, we have reached consensus on 11 Guiding Principles. Till such time, we are able to agree on a normative and operational framework, these guiding principles provide the moorings to our work. One of the options in India's view is to have these
Guiding Principles endorsed by the Sixth Review Conference of the CCW in the form of a political declaration. This declaration at the highest political level will ensure that High Contracting Parties will formulate national policy and regulatory frameworks to implement these Guiding Principles, avoiding any legal, regulatory or operational gaps. The Sixth Review Conference of the CCW may also be requested to renew the current mandate of the GGE on LAWS.
I thank you Mr. Chairperson.
9 August 2021
Agenda Item 6 – Preparation of the Report for consideration at the Sixth Review Conference of the CCW in accordance with the decision of the High Contracting Parties in 2019
Mr. Chairperson,
Thank you for giving me the floor.
At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the very productive deliberations held by this GGE last week, building on our work of last 8 years as well as the informal exchanges convened by you last month under your able leadership and guidance.
My current intervention is without prejudice to India’s position on the substantive aspects of the report of the GGE, that may be prepared and put up for consideration by the GGE for adoption, and my delegation reserves its position on the same.
We are now on agenda item 6, which tasks us to prepare the report for consideration of the Sixth Review Conference of the CCW in accordance with the mandate given by the Fifth Review Conference and subsequently elaborated by the Annual Meeting of the High Contracting Parties of the CCW in 2019.
India would like to stress that the GGE must stay faithful to its mandate, an important part of which is to explore and agree on possible recommendations on options related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. This was also underlined by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation on Friday. The Group is also to consider the Guiding Principles, which it may further develop and elaborate, the work on legal, technological and military aspects, the conclusions of the Group as reflected in its reports of 2017, 2018 and 2019 and use them as a basis for its consensus recommendations in relation to the clarification, consideration and development of aspects of the normative and operational framework on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. My delegation does not believe that we have sufficiently discussed these aspects in depth. It is partly due to the fact that we have not had all the meetings as planned due to the Covid-19 pandemic. But nothing is lost. We have 15 more days available to us from today onwards.
Mr. Chairperson,
My delegation had expressed its appreciation for all the efforts by you, your team and the CCW ISU in the context of our work. At the same time, my delegation had also expressed its problems with the Chairperson’s paper, particularly in the form it has been presented. The Chairperson’s Paper, as it has been presented, ought to be in the domain and the competence of the Sixth Review Conference and not this GGE. Even though, you had qualified that this paper is likely to undergo several changes, it will not be possible for my delegation to engage on it in its current form. I would therefore like to ask you, if you would be presenting us with another draft, in line with the formats of the GGE reports adopted in the past.
Just like any creation, whether a piece of literature or art, reflects the vision of the author or the artist, theChairperson’s paper is a reflection of your vision of outcome of the GGE, which we fully respect. However, it was evident from the discussions last week, that such a vision is not shared by a number of delegations, including India. While the Chairperson’s Paper may include a number of convergences, there are several divergences and severe differences on the approach and content of the Chairperson’s Paper, but most importantly on its form. I had noted on Friday that to a multilaterally trained mind, the Paper appears to be a draft Treaty Text, clearly siding with those who have called for a legally binding instrument on LAWS. I don’t have the vantage position like you, but from where I sit, I see two dominant strands of thought, which clearly divide this room. One strand calls for a legally binding instrument on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, with some delegations even going as far as suggesting a complete ban and prohibition on LAWS. The other strand calls for consolidating consensus recommendations emanating from the convergences so far, and further continuation of our discussions for clarification, consideration and development of aspects of the normative and operational framework on emerging technologies in the area of LAW. It is important that we bridge this divide.
My delegation is mindful of the fact that we are working towards consensus recommendations and therefore will approach the deliberations in this constructive spirit and support you in this endeavor.
In this context, my delegation would like to recall a number of successful approaches and experiences from the past, which you and the GGE may wish to consider.
The first approach can be based on the past reports of the GGE on LAWS themselves, which have always been adopted by consensus, and does not require any elaboration.
The second approach can be derived from the successful adoption of the 2018 reports of the Subsidiary Bodies in the CD. I would particularly like to commend Ambassador Robbert Gabrielse for his excellent stewardship of the work of the Subsidiary Body 2 and the inclusive approach adopted by him while preparing and finalizing the report. The report accommodated and reflected extremely divergent and even diametrically opposite positions, thereby allowing delegations, including that of mine, to join consensus.
The third approach can be based on the precedent of the successful adoption of the Final Report of the High Level Expert Preparatory Group on FMCT in 2018 by consensus. I refer to this report, fully conscious of the fact that one of the key stakeholders in FMCT did not participate in the HLEPG and that this report is without any prejudice to its position. Chairperson of the HLEPG, Ambassador Heidi Hulan from Canada also followed an inclusive approach and decided to present the recommendations in the form of a menu of possible options, which may be considered by the future negotiators. The report included all options, even if they were mutually contradictory and opposite in effect at times, but that is how we were able to reach consensus.
I am sure, we can learn from some of these successful efforts and arrive at a consensus report. However, if we find that the divisions are too deep and cannot be papered over by a report, there is another way, which was shown to us in the form of a procedural and technical report by the distinguished delegation of the US to the CD in 2019, when delegations had strong differences on the draft Annual Report of the CD to the UNGA.
Mr. Chairperson,
We hope that we would not have to follow the last approach, and with your long multilateral experience and acumen, we might be able to identify elements for consensus recommendations based on any of the first three approaches. If the past is a guide, we cannot fail. We have succeeded in the past, when we adopted the ten Guiding Principles and supplemented them with the eleventh Guiding Principle in the following year, tabled by none other than your own country.
As a final point, India would like to underline that the CCW offers the most appropriate framework for dealing with the issue of emerging technologies in the area of LAWS within the context of the objectives and purposes of the Convention, as also stated in the guiding principle (k) and India shall not participate in any forum or framework outside the CCW on these issues.
Mr. Chairperson,
My delegation hopes that you would be able to share a revised paper at the earliest to allow all of us to actively engage in this collective endeavor, which has a significant bearing on international peace and security.
Thank you.
