The Group of Governmental Experts on lethal autonomous weapons systems now stands at a consequential juncture. The mandate adopted by the High Contracting Parties gives the GGE a concrete, timebound task: to consider and formulate, by consensus, a set of elements of an instrument addressing LAWS. That mandate, and the rolling text the Chair has circulated, will frame the March session’s work.

For delegates and advisers arriving in Geneva the first imperative is intellectual discipline. Read the revised rolling text attentively. It is not a treaty draft in form. It is a negotiating scaffold composed of discrete boxes: a working characterisation; applicability of international humanitarian law; prohibitions and regulations; further measures; and responsibility and accountability. These boxes reveal where consensus is nascent and where the fault lines run. If you have only a week to prepare, make the rolling text your single prioritized reading.

A second imperative is legal clarity. The GGE repeatedly affirms that existing international humanitarian law continues to apply to weapons systems. But applying abstract IHL norms to algorithmic behaviors requires mapping legal concepts onto concrete, technical system functions. Prepare short legal-technical memos that do this mapping for a small set of illustrative systems: an interceptor that autonomously selects and engages fast-moving threats in a bounded corridor; a loitering munition with pattern-recognition aided targeting; and an automated perimeter defense system that escalates responses across civilian-adjacent terrain. Each memo should state the system’s ‘‘critical functions’’ in operational terms, then test those functions against distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. Policymakers will not negotiate in the register of philosophy; they will negotiate against concrete functional descriptions.

Third, assemble multidisciplinary teams. A persuasive state position now combines three competencies: operational military understanding, crisp IHL analysis, and sober technical explanation of limits and failure modes. The temptation to let a single legal expert carry the brief is costly. Technical annexes should include simple empirical claims about predictability, reproducibility, data provenance, and auditability. The Chair’s rolling text already signals attention to lifecycle obligations and measures to ensure compliance; be ready to propose concrete verification elements such as provenance logs, immutable audit trails, and third party testing protocols.

Fourth, prepare negotiating moves for the central semantic battles. The two most fought-over phrases are variants of ‘‘meaningful human control’’ and ‘‘context-appropriate human judgement and control.’’ Expect arguments over whether such formulations are descriptive guardrails or normative gates. If your delegation favours a regulatory approach, prepare to advocate a two-tier architecture: prohibit systems that categorically cannot meet IHL standards while regulating others via robust obligations. If your delegation favours narrower text, prepare principled examples of systems it believes should be excluded from scope. The literature and policy analysis suggest the two-tier framework has traction as a compromise pathway; consider how your red lines and fallback positions map onto that framework.

Fifth, carve a posture for accountability. The rolling text’s box on responsibility stresses human accountability across the life cycle. Negotiations will pivot on whether obligations attach only at deployment or extend to design, testing, and operational constraints. If your delegation values preserving command responsibility and legal accountability, push for traceability requirements and explicit obligations for pre-deployment weapons-review processes that can be demonstrated and audited. Beware of language that privileges ‘‘best efforts’’ without measurable compliance mechanisms.

Sixth, prepare for political dynamics and coalition work. The GGE is not only technical. It is a political theatre where coalition statements matter. Early coordination with like-minded states on joint language can change the anchor point of the discussion. Conversely, unilateral maximalist text proposals often polarize debate and produce deadlock. Identify potential friends and interlocutors in advance, and prepare a two-stage communications plan: a public framing that emphasises humanitarian and legal concerns, and a private negotiating plan with concrete bracketed text proposals. The recent UN General Assembly resolution on LAWS adds weight to the Geneva process and expands political expectations for results; bear that institutional pressure in mind when calibrating ambition.

Seventh, use side events strategically. Side events are not mere publicity. They are venues to insert technical models, forensic proposals, and case studies into the minds of delegates who may lack technical exposure. If you organise a side event, pick one crisp message and a two-page take-away. Panels with a mix of military practitioners, IHL experts, and system engineers produce more persuasive uptake than panels of only lawyers. Keep presentations short and empirically anchored.

Eighth, plan for ambiguity and the perils of imprecision. Ambiguous treaty language survives the negotiating room; it survives in ways that advantage actors with greater resources to exploit gray zones. Philosophically, the GGE faces a fundamental choice: to trap an emerging technology in taut rules that may become obsolete, or to craft obligations that bind behaviour across a shifting technical landscape. My modest recommendation is to pursue operationally precise obligations tied to functions of systems rather than ontological definitions of ‘‘autonomy.’’ A clause that limits the permissible range of autonomous engagements, defines critical functions for which human oversight is required, and prescribes auditable controls will be more durable than a protracted definitional fight.

Finally, cultivate intellectual humility. Delegates are being asked to regulate systems whose capabilities will continue to evolve. Do not mistake rhetorical certainty for empirical competence. Where uncertainty persists, build mechanisms into the instrument for periodic review, technical annex updates, and expert panels to assess new capabilities. Institutionalise learning rather than promising finality. The moral terrain here is not abstract. When states choose complacency or rhetorical simplicity they risk both civilian harm and a progressive erosion of human accountability. Treat the March session as a moment to convert political urgency into institutional architecture that mitigates risk while retaining human responsibility.

Checklist for delegations (concise):

  • Read the revised rolling text and the CCW 2024 final report closely.
  • Produce 2-page legal-technical memos for 2–3 representative systems.
  • Draft bracketed language for your preferred Box and a calibrated fallback aligned to a two-tier approach.
  • Prepare operational verification proposals: audit logs, provenance, weapons-review templates.
  • Coordinate with allied delegations on joint language and side-event scheduling.

If you follow that disciplined sequence you will arrive at the GGE better equipped to influence substance rather than to be swept along by narrative. The task before the Group is both narrow and existential: to translate law, ethics, and strategy into obligations that preserve human dignity and accountability in decisions of life and death. That translation is not a purely technical exercise. It is a moral one. Meet it with seriousness, with humility, and with preparedness.