On Autonomous Weapons Systems and the blind spots of International Law

Earlier this summer I spoke at the Human Security Salon. It was genuinely refreshing to see the Human Security Unit amplify a critical narrative so often sidelined in mainstream security discourse. The video that set the contours of the discussion was vivid and honest; it was refreshing to see and hear critique. In my intervention I spoke to legal pluralism and contestation — emphasizing how these lived realities actively resist and undercut the liberal violences that are routinely, and at times deliberately, reproduced under the guise of order, ethics, and progress.

We urgently need more spaces that confront these uncomfortable truths and centre grounded, justice-driven perspectives. Importantly, this does not simply mean leaning on conventional human‑rights discourse from the ivory tower, which can itself reproduce the very liberal violences it claims to oppose. In particular, liberal campaigns or movements can sometimes justify certain forms of violence—such as punishment or war—in the name of maintaining freedom, order, or moral progress. This liberal violence has been seen clearly through the silence by some in the human rights movement over Israel’s genocidal acts in Gaza where artificial systems have been deployed for targeting. Rather, it means mobilizing resistance through diverse legal frameworks — including, where necessary, defense and security tools — especially in a world that is increasingly polarized and threatened by violent state actors.

We must go further, particularly now, while – according to the UN and leading international human rights organisations – genocidal acts continues in Gaza and while Israel carry out strikes beyond traditional war zones in countries like Qatar. Such acts — and the international reaction to them — expose the limits and the selectivity of international law’s application. This can be viewed in two ways: first thorough the non-robust enforcement of international law through its institutions, and secondly through selective application of the law through engaging in state ‘lawfare’ -  the strategic use of law to justify military (and non-military) projects. There is no denying that international law is indeterminate by nature and thus can be subject to manipulation as a tool for power.

From a TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law) perspective, the international legal regime’s handling of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) uncovers deep structural blind spots. The movement would advocate that international law has historically served the interests of powerful Western states while marginalizing the Global South. TWAIL scholars aim to expose and challenge these power imbalances, advocating for a more just and inclusive international legal order rooted in postcolonial and decolonial perspectives. There are several critical issues from a TWAIL lens: global power imbalances, threats to sovereignty and self-determination, pre-existing accountability gaps in international law, and the lack of inclusivity in lawmaking.

While mainstream approaches or understanding of international law face serious challenges, it is equally important to situate the AWS debate within its broader political context. The Hobbesian condition of anarchy that defines today’s world—where no overarching authority enforces rules and states act primarily out of self-interest—has created a global environment that resembles a violent free-for-all. It is crucial to recognize that international law is not neutral; it can serve as both a weapon and a shield. States of the Global South must therefore assertively cultivate and deploy their jurists in international forums to resist domination. Waiting for Western states or institutions—many of whom have historically backed or enabled devastating campaigns – including complicity in genocidal acts in Gaza - while experimenting with new technologies—to dictate norms on AI, drones, and modern warfare is neither prudent nor sufficient.

The residue of colonialism must end, and with it the realisation that the ‘others’ can too ink law making or offer governance insights. It is vital to recognize that Global South states—some emerging as middle powers or even leaders in artificial intelligence /AWS—have the capacity to engage meaningfully in debates around autonomous weapon systems (AWS). For example, the UAE has established a dominant position in AI development in the Middle East, consistently advancing over the years and even competing with the U.S. in areas such as large language model (LLM) development. While countries like Qatar may not yet match the technological scale of leading AI powers, they have begun launching new initiatives to engage in debates on autonomous weapon systems (AWS) and artificial intelligence across several domains, not just military affairs. What makes their approach distinctive is the integration of local cultural traditions and Islamic ethical frameworks as guiding lenses for governance and technological development. This represents an important opening for alternative epistemic knowledge production and understanding of the challenges to inform discussions on the governance of AWS and, more broadly, AI technologies. Moreover, we have China and Turkiye developing not only armed drones with AWS or AI capability as a competitor to the west, but also other satellite communication systems that influence the reach of AWS.

Historically, the influence of legal pluralism such as Islamic jurisprudence on frameworks like the Geneva Conventions and broader principles of international justice has often been erased or maligned. Today, Gulf states heavily investing in AI and AWS architectures have a renewed opportunity to contribute to these debates, introducing nuance, depth, and culturally grounded perspectives. Such engagement could be interpreted as a form of contestation against an exclusionary legal order, or as a step toward more pluralistic and inclusive governance. In a context where international lawmaking and enforcement are increasingly fragmented, the inclusion of alternative understandings and local knowledge in addressing new technological and ethical challenges should be embraced and valued.

The reason is simple: the West is no longer the sole technological power driving the development of AI and autonomous weapon systems. The landscape of innovation is diversifying—and so too must the voices that shape governance. Law and technology governance offers a new entry point for the global south to contribute. The future of international law will be defined by those willing to push beyond the confines of imposed order, confronting the archival violence, testimonial injustice, and epistemic erasure that continue to uphold global hierarchies. This moment demands more than moral appeals; it calls for a radical reimagining of legal power, one rooted in emancipation and equity.

----

Khalil Dewan is a PhD Nomos Scholar in Law at SOAS University of London, where his research focuses on drone targeted killings, artificial intelligence, and critical approaches to international law.