Autonomous weapons that can independently select and attack targets are already emerging on battlefields, raising profound ethical and legal questions about machines making life-and-death decisions without meaningful human control.

International humanitarian law requires distinction, proportionality and accountability—principles that become harder to uphold when AI systems operate at high speed, risk misidentification, or obscure responsibility across developers, operators and commanders.

Humanitarian organisations, the UN Secretary-General, the ICRC and a growing number of states call for legally binding prohibitions (especially on anti-personnel systems) and strict restrictions before such weapons become widely embedded and far harder to control.

As artificial intelligence moves from supporting military operations to becoming a weapon that can choose and launch attacks, governments must now decide, without further delay, whether machines should ever be allowed to make life-and-death decisions.

For most of the nuclear age, the greatest fear of humanity has been that a human being might push the button. The danger with autonomous weapons is that the decision to launch an attack could slowly move from a human to a machine. 

A machine does not understand death, never doubts, and cannot appreciate the moral value of the lives it is programmed to destroy. This raises serious ethical concerns. And it is no longer just science fiction. 

Weapons that can identify, track, and attack targets with less and less human involvement are being developed and used at a growing pace. Artificial intelligence now helps military systems analyse surveillance data, recognise objects, navigate without satellite signals, coordinate drones, and suggest targets. In some cases, once activated, a weapon can pick its target and use force without any more human input.

It is getting harder to tell the difference between automated help and machines making deadly decisions on their own.

Conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and elsewhere are speeding up this shift. Drones that keep moving toward their targets even after losing contact with operators are useful when electronic control is disrupted. AI-assisted systems can process information faster than humans. Swarms of drones can break through defences by working together in large numbers. Governments under pressure to protect their troops and act quickly are unlikely to give up these advantages.

But international rules have not kept pace.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) states that autonomous weapons are already a reality and cautions that introducing unpredictable types of AI could greatly raise the risk to civilians. 

António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, has called for a legally binding measure which includes prohibitions and restrictions; so too have humanitarian organisations, religious leaders, arms-control experts and an increasing number of governments.

Ahead of the Seventh Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which is set to take place in November 2026, Soka Gakkai International (SGI) cautions that autonomous targeting can erase the individual behind the data and lead to the trivialisation of killing. Daisaku Ikeda, former president of SGI, maintained that autonomous weapons produce both a physical and an “ethical disconnect”, distancing those who initiate an attack from the reality of the consequences.

SGI calls for action. “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to humanity.” Decisions having profound implications for human life “must never be handed over to AI.”

This June marked the 81st anniversary of humanity’s shared pledge, inscribed in the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations—a pledge born from profound and painful reflection on the two world wars, which claimed the precious lives of people across the world. SGI points out that since the founding of the United Nations, the international community has continued to pursue efforts toward conflict resolution and peacebuilding, even in the face of repeated crises, including the prolonged division of the world during the Cold War. The conclusion of various disarmament treaties has likewise advanced step by step, aided by the strong support of civil society.

“Today, however, circumstances have arisen that threaten to erode the international community’s decades-long efforts at their very foundation.” In recent years, as conflicts and the use of military force continue to spread across Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa and other regions, the situation—in which “the basic tenets of international humanitarian law are routinely and deliberately being violated”—shows no sign of abating.

As a result, countless numbers of civilians, including children, women, older persons, and those suffering from illness, continue to suffer the devastating consequences of these conflicts time and time again.

The weapons are arriving before the rules.

The language around autonomous weapons is often debated and sometimes kept vague on purpose.

The ICRC describes an autonomous weapon as one that, once activated, chooses and uses force against a target without any human involvement. Sensors collect data concerning the environment, after which the software compares this data with a previously defined “target profile”. Should the necessary conditions be fulfilled, the system then carries out an attack.

Not all autonomous weapons use artificial intelligence, and not every military use of AI counts as an autonomous weapon. Making this distinction is important for understanding the legal and ethical issues.

A missile-intercepting defensive system might work automatically since no human could react quickly enough. It is aimed at a clearly defined military target in a fairly controlled environment. On the other hand, an AI decision-support system could analyse intelligence and suggest a target while leaving the final decision to a human commander.

Categories which appear clear in writing can become blurred in practice. An AI system might rank suspected threats, decide which objects should attract attention and work out how much time is available for taking action. When an........

© Eurasia Review