The New Battlefield Reality
The conversation around artificial intelligence in warfare has moved from science fiction to urgent reality. Military powers around the globe are increasingly integrating AI into its defence systems. This isn't just about 'killer robots' as often depicted
in movies. It involves AI-powered software for early warning systems, intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, and identifying potential threats. The proliferation of these technologies has created a 'growing realization that we stand at a crossroad', according to Robin Geiss, head of the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). The core issue is that as systems become more autonomous, the margin for human judgment gets dangerously narrow, raising profound questions about control, accountability, and compliance with international law.
A Push for Global Guardrails
In response, the international community has been grappling with how to regulate these technologies, primarily through the UN's Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) in Geneva. After years of discussion, a consensus is emerging that something must be done. The debate is no longer about a distant possibility but about establishing rules for technologies already changing the face of warfare. The UNIDIR recently established a Center of Excellence on AI, Peace and Security, the first permanent UN platform for these issues, signaling a new urgency. The current focus is on developing a framework of rules, with draft proposals now forming the basis for intense negotiation among member states.
Inside the Audit Proposals
A central feature of the draft treaties is the concept of standardized safety and compliance audits for any AI software used in combat. Rather than an outright ban, which several major powers oppose, these proposals focus on ensuring AI systems are safe, reliable, and controllable. An audit would scrutinize the AI's code and decision-making processes to test for vulnerabilities. This includes checking for algorithmic bias that could lead to misidentification of civilians, ensuring the system is robust against hacking, and confirming its behaviour is predictable. The goal is to enforce the principles of 'meaningful human control' and 'human judgement', ensuring that a human operator remains legally and ethically responsible for any action taken. The proposals also suggest creating emergency response procedures for when AI systems fail.
The Deep Divisions
While there's agreement on the need for action, there is significant disagreement on the details. One of the biggest sticking points is the nature of the instrument, with over 70 countries pushing for a legally binding treaty, while others, including the US and Russia, favour non-binding national measures. Recent closed-door negotiations have seen some powers reportedly strip out language requiring systems to be 'predictable' and 'reliable'. Another point of contention is who would conduct the audits. Many nations are wary of international or third-party verification, preferring a self-certification model to protect national security secrets. This has created a divide between those seeking strong, enforceable international law and those prioritising sovereign control over their military technology.
What's at Stake for India
For India, the outcome of these negotiations is critical. As a rising AI power actively integrating autonomous systems into its military, India has a significant strategic interest. Historically, India has viewed calls for a legally binding treaty as premature, arguing that member states must first arrive at a common definition and understanding of the technology. India's position is rooted in a desire to avoid discriminatory arms-control treaties while maintaining that existing international humanitarian law is sufficient to regulate the effects of these new weapons. However, Delhi supports the need for regulation and has emphasised aligning its conventional strategies with digital technologies. This places India in a crucial balancing act: supporting global norms without compromising its own defence modernization and strategic autonomy.
