This year’s five-week session of the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security took place at a time of uncertainty and insecurity. Continued material support for genocide and armed conflict by several Western governments, the modernization of nuclear weapons, the rampant circulation of small arms and ammunition, the use of landmines and cluster munitions, and the development of new ways to kill through technology provided a bleak backdrop to the Committee’s work. Nonetheless, some of the 77 resolutions adopted during this year’s session, and the overwhelming support for demilitarization by the majority of the world’s governments and civil society, are important for driving disarmament work forward.
The UN headquarters in New York hosted the annual meeting of the General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security. | Credit: Ray Acheson, 2024.
Reactions to Current Conflicts
The majority of First Committee delegations are clearly worried about levels of militarism and armed conflict spiralling out of control. During the early weeks of the Committee’s debates, Austria warned, “New and multiple arms race dynamics are accelerating,” including “a re-emergence of nuclear armament and nuclear threats, to the rapid development and deployment of autonomous weapons,” to “outer space becoming seen by some as a war-fighting domain.” Switzerland highlighted that there “are more than 120 armed conflicts worldwide,” accompanied by “massive violations of international humanitarian law,” while Cambodia lamented that, “[d]espite the tireless efforts of many states, we are witnessing the resurgence of arms races, the modernization of nuclear arsenals, and the unchecked flow of conventional weapons into conflict zones.”
Specific conflicts attracted more mixed reactions. Western countries quickly and rightly condemned Russia’s war against Ukraine, but they were much more tepid in their responses to Israel’s genocide of Palestine and attempts to expand its war throughout the Middle East. That said, a large number of countries did express concerns about Israel’s aggression, and some called for an arms embargo and an end to material support for the genocide. Some delegations also raised concerns about other armed conflicts, including those in Sudan and Myanmar, but attention to these was more muted. Some delegations criticized the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and the use of banned or regulated weapons such cluster munitions, landmines, and incendiary weapons.
While many issues and weapons were discussed and addressed throughout the First Committee, this blog will focus on three new initiatives advanced at this year’s session. Details on the full range of work can be found in the First Committee Monitor published weekly by Reaching Critical Will.
Refusing the Automation of Violence
As the multitude of ongoing armed conflicts clearly shows, there is no weapon that can make war “safer” for civilians. Weapons only make war more likely, and, as the Nordic countries pointed out, “Every conflict makes disarmament more difficult.” Yet a handful of militarized governments continue to argue that autonomy and artificial intelligence (AI) in military systems will “improve accuracy” in warfighting and reduce civilian casualties.
Most states, however, recognize that the drive to use algorithms and AI in the operation of weapons and warfare poses grave risk to human life and dignity. Mexico noted that while “arguments used by proponents of integrating artificial intelligence into the military field, especially those related to autonomous weapons, speak of a better selection and discrimination of military targets that, in theory, would protect civilians and other non-combatants,” this argument only “reaffirms the vision of a more efficient militarization, rather than a preventive vision of conflicts.” We can already see how AI is helping Israel commit genocide; it’s all too clear what will transpire as software and sensors are increasingly used to kill.
The First Committee adopted a modest resolution tabled by Austria to contend with this issue, establishing two days of consultations in New York in 2025 to complement the ongoing work at the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on autonomous weapon systems underway under the auspices of the Convention on Conventional Weapons in Geneva. The new consultations will add value to the GGE’s work by broadening the conversation to additional states—responses to a UN secretary-general’s report earlier this year clearly show global interest in this topic. A consultation process will also widen the scope of discussion beyond armed conflict and international humanitarian law, to address the relevance of ethics, dehumanization, bias, human rights, security, the global arms race, proliferation, use by non-state actors, use by police or border control, and more.
The overwhelming support for the resolution, indicated by the 161 votes in favor, provides further impetus to the joint call from the secretary-general and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for the negotiation of new legally binding rules on autonomous weapons by 2026. Unfortunately, the resolution was watered down by a small number of highly militarized states, which demanded changes to the text to narrow its scope, reducing the number of days for consultations to just two, and limiting the consultations to New York rather than both New York and Geneva. This bending to the pressure of the minority demonstrates why it is so critical that autonomous weapon systems are discussed in a forum that is accessible to all states and in which the consensus rules cannot be used as a veto, as has frequently occurred at the GGE.
The First Committee also adopted a new resolution this year on AI in military systems, tabled by the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea. It doesn’t aim for any particular regulatory outcome but requests the UN secretary-general seek the views of states and others “on the opportunities and challenges posed to international peace and security by the application of artificial intelligence in the military domain.” The resolution calls on states to ensure “responsible” application of AI in the military domain, but as Mexico noted in its explanation of vote, technology “must serve to enhance human development and not to make the military machinery more efficient.” Egypt similarly argued that “opportunities should not be equated with the already proven serious challenges and risks posed by its military applications. Our focus needs to be directed to addressing those challenges and risks.”
Studying Nuclear War
The General Assembly’s First Committee convened at the UN in New York in October-November. | Credit: Ray Acheson, 2024.
Another important opportunity to advance disarmament in the First Committee comes from the new resolution seeking to establish a UN study on the impacts of nuclear war. Zia Mian, co-director of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security and co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Group to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, noted, “A UN-mandated expert study assessing and addressing the current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war can help enable a more fully informed and inclusive global debate on what nuclear war means in terms of the harm that would come to people and planet.”
The last time the international community collectively examined the impacts of nuclear war was the 1980s. New technologies like climate modelling are now available, and recent case studies such as those on French nuclear testing in the Pacific and the US Trinity Test in New Mexico have shown how much more information is available now than in the past. Ireland and New Zealand, the key sponors of the resolution, explained that the new study, which will be presented to the UN General Assembly in 2027, “will deliver a stronger evidence base that will inform the world and contribute to constructive dialogue with a view to convergence in work on nuclear disarmament and arms control,” and that it will strengthen the taboo against nuclear weapons.
Most states supported this project, with 144 voting in favor of the text. Only three states voted against the resolution—nuclear-armed France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Most other nuclear-armed states—the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States—abstained, while China voted in favor. Some nuclear weapon supporters in NATO abstained, but some voted in favor. France and the UK’s reported attempts to get NATO members to vote against the resolution failed, likely because the willful suppression of scientific information about the use of nuclear weapons was a line that they were not willing to cross.
Outer Space Mayhem
Another line that First Committee delegates had to confront this year was the impending prospect of weapons in space. Earlier this year, US government officials began warning of a nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed anti-satellite capability they believe Russia is developing. Russia denied the claims, but then vetoed a US-Japan led resolution in the UN Security Council in April that set out to reaffirm the Outer Space Treaty’s prohibition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space. So, the US and Japan brought that resolution to the First Committee, where no state has a veto.
The text affirms the obligation of all states parties to fully comply with the Outer Space Treaty, “including not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.” The resolution also urges states to take what the United States described as “the next logical step” by not developing nuclear weapons or any other kinds of WMD that are specifically designed to be placed in orbit, installed on celestial bodies, or stationed in outer space.
In response, Russia tabledtworesolutions containing proposed amendments to the US-Japan draft. With its resolutions, Russia sought to broaden the scope of the US-Japan resolution to go beyond WMD to cover all weapons; beyond just the development of outer space weapons to also include their testing; and beyond preventing weapons in space to preventing the use of force from or into space. Russia also called on states to enshrine all these commitments in a legally binding treaty. The US delegation opposed Russia’s proposed amendments, and they were rejected during voting. The US-Japan resolution was adopted with a vote of 159 in favor, five against, and six abstentions.
The contest over WMD in space was not the only outer space struggle in the First Committee. Last year, the First Committee established two tracks of work on outer space: a Russian-led open-ended working group (OEWG) on further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space from 2024–2028, and another UK-led OEWG on reducing space threats through norms, rules, and principles of responsible of behaviors from 2025–2026.
This year, Brazil, Egypt, and others tabled a resolution calling for a merging of the two groups. Brazil argued that the two OEWGs would impose a massive financial burden on all UN member states and create a challenge for adequate participation by many states. “But above all,” Brazil pointed out, “given their different mandates, objectives and timeframes, the chances that the two OEWGs might work in a harmonious and complementary manner are very slim.” Many states supported this approach, with most voting in favor of the proposal to merge the groups. But Russia objected to it, raising questions about how successful the merger will be next year.
Actions Speak Louder
Moving forward from the First Committee, states and civil society now have to put these and other other resolutions adopted to work. Concrete action is necessary. As the chair of the First Committee, Ambassador Maritza Chan of Costa Rica, said to states in her closing remarks, “We must cooperate, not compete, with each other, in order to survive and thrive in our dynamic world. The changes and developments in our world are not out of our hands. We are responsible for the decisions that can take us deeper into conflict and mistrust, or that can honour the dreams of those who created the UN Charter in the ashes of war, to save succeeding generations from that kind of horror.”
This post expresses the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative (ACCPI), Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, or Harvard University.
Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will
This year’s five-week session of the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security took place at a time of uncertainty and insecurity. Continued material support for genocide and armed conflict by several Western governments, the modernization of nuclear weapons, the rampant circulation of small arms and ammunition, the use of landmines and cluster munitions, and the development of new ways to kill through technology provided a bleak backdrop to the Committee’s work. Nonetheless, some of the 77 resolutions adopted during this year’s session, and the overwhelming support for demilitarization by the majority of the world’s governments and civil society, are important for driving disarmament work forward.
Reactions to Current Conflicts
The majority of First Committee delegations are clearly worried about levels of militarism and armed conflict spiralling out of control. During the early weeks of the Committee’s debates, Austria warned, “New and multiple arms race dynamics are accelerating,” including “a re-emergence of nuclear armament and nuclear threats, to the rapid development and deployment of autonomous weapons,” to “outer space becoming seen by some as a war-fighting domain.” Switzerland highlighted that there “are more than 120 armed conflicts worldwide,” accompanied by “massive violations of international humanitarian law,” while Cambodia lamented that, “[d]espite the tireless efforts of many states, we are witnessing the resurgence of arms races, the modernization of nuclear arsenals, and the unchecked flow of conventional weapons into conflict zones.”
Specific conflicts attracted more mixed reactions. Western countries quickly and rightly condemned Russia’s war against Ukraine, but they were much more tepid in their responses to Israel’s genocide of Palestine and attempts to expand its war throughout the Middle East. That said, a large number of countries did express concerns about Israel’s aggression, and some called for an arms embargo and an end to material support for the genocide. Some delegations also raised concerns about other armed conflicts, including those in Sudan and Myanmar, but attention to these was more muted. Some delegations criticized the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and the use of banned or regulated weapons such cluster munitions, landmines, and incendiary weapons.
While many issues and weapons were discussed and addressed throughout the First Committee, this blog will focus on three new initiatives advanced at this year’s session. Details on the full range of work can be found in the First Committee Monitor published weekly by Reaching Critical Will.
Refusing the Automation of Violence
As the multitude of ongoing armed conflicts clearly shows, there is no weapon that can make war “safer” for civilians. Weapons only make war more likely, and, as the Nordic countries pointed out, “Every conflict makes disarmament more difficult.” Yet a handful of militarized governments continue to argue that autonomy and artificial intelligence (AI) in military systems will “improve accuracy” in warfighting and reduce civilian casualties.
Most states, however, recognize that the drive to use algorithms and AI in the operation of weapons and warfare poses grave risk to human life and dignity. Mexico noted that while “arguments used by proponents of integrating artificial intelligence into the military field, especially those related to autonomous weapons, speak of a better selection and discrimination of military targets that, in theory, would protect civilians and other non-combatants,” this argument only “reaffirms the vision of a more efficient militarization, rather than a preventive vision of conflicts.” We can already see how AI is helping Israel commit genocide; it’s all too clear what will transpire as software and sensors are increasingly used to kill.
The First Committee adopted a modest resolution tabled by Austria to contend with this issue, establishing two days of consultations in New York in 2025 to complement the ongoing work at the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on autonomous weapon systems underway under the auspices of the Convention on Conventional Weapons in Geneva. The new consultations will add value to the GGE’s work by broadening the conversation to additional states—responses to a UN secretary-general’s report earlier this year clearly show global interest in this topic. A consultation process will also widen the scope of discussion beyond armed conflict and international humanitarian law, to address the relevance of ethics, dehumanization, bias, human rights, security, the global arms race, proliferation, use by non-state actors, use by police or border control, and more.
The overwhelming support for the resolution, indicated by the 161 votes in favor, provides further impetus to the joint call from the secretary-general and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for the negotiation of new legally binding rules on autonomous weapons by 2026. Unfortunately, the resolution was watered down by a small number of highly militarized states, which demanded changes to the text to narrow its scope, reducing the number of days for consultations to just two, and limiting the consultations to New York rather than both New York and Geneva. This bending to the pressure of the minority demonstrates why it is so critical that autonomous weapon systems are discussed in a forum that is accessible to all states and in which the consensus rules cannot be used as a veto, as has frequently occurred at the GGE.
The First Committee also adopted a new resolution this year on AI in military systems, tabled by the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea. It doesn’t aim for any particular regulatory outcome but requests the UN secretary-general seek the views of states and others “on the opportunities and challenges posed to international peace and security by the application of artificial intelligence in the military domain.” The resolution calls on states to ensure “responsible” application of AI in the military domain, but as Mexico noted in its explanation of vote, technology “must serve to enhance human development and not to make the military machinery more efficient.” Egypt similarly argued that “opportunities should not be equated with the already proven serious challenges and risks posed by its military applications. Our focus needs to be directed to addressing those challenges and risks.”
Studying Nuclear War
Another important opportunity to advance disarmament in the First Committee comes from the new resolution seeking to establish a UN study on the impacts of nuclear war. Zia Mian, co-director of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security and co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Group to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, noted, “A UN-mandated expert study assessing and addressing the current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war can help enable a more fully informed and inclusive global debate on what nuclear war means in terms of the harm that would come to people and planet.”
The last time the international community collectively examined the impacts of nuclear war was the 1980s. New technologies like climate modelling are now available, and recent case studies such as those on French nuclear testing in the Pacific and the US Trinity Test in New Mexico have shown how much more information is available now than in the past. Ireland and New Zealand, the key sponors of the resolution, explained that the new study, which will be presented to the UN General Assembly in 2027, “will deliver a stronger evidence base that will inform the world and contribute to constructive dialogue with a view to convergence in work on nuclear disarmament and arms control,” and that it will strengthen the taboo against nuclear weapons.
Most states supported this project, with 144 voting in favor of the text. Only three states voted against the resolution—nuclear-armed France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Most other nuclear-armed states—the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States—abstained, while China voted in favor. Some nuclear weapon supporters in NATO abstained, but some voted in favor. France and the UK’s reported attempts to get NATO members to vote against the resolution failed, likely because the willful suppression of scientific information about the use of nuclear weapons was a line that they were not willing to cross.
Outer Space Mayhem
Another line that First Committee delegates had to confront this year was the impending prospect of weapons in space. Earlier this year, US government officials began warning of a nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed anti-satellite capability they believe Russia is developing. Russia denied the claims, but then vetoed a US-Japan led resolution in the UN Security Council in April that set out to reaffirm the Outer Space Treaty’s prohibition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space. So, the US and Japan brought that resolution to the First Committee, where no state has a veto.
The text affirms the obligation of all states parties to fully comply with the Outer Space Treaty, “including not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.” The resolution also urges states to take what the United States described as “the next logical step” by not developing nuclear weapons or any other kinds of WMD that are specifically designed to be placed in orbit, installed on celestial bodies, or stationed in outer space.
In response, Russia tabled two resolutions containing proposed amendments to the US-Japan draft. With its resolutions, Russia sought to broaden the scope of the US-Japan resolution to go beyond WMD to cover all weapons; beyond just the development of outer space weapons to also include their testing; and beyond preventing weapons in space to preventing the use of force from or into space. Russia also called on states to enshrine all these commitments in a legally binding treaty. The US delegation opposed Russia’s proposed amendments, and they were rejected during voting. The US-Japan resolution was adopted with a vote of 159 in favor, five against, and six abstentions.
The contest over WMD in space was not the only outer space struggle in the First Committee. Last year, the First Committee established two tracks of work on outer space: a Russian-led open-ended working group (OEWG) on further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space from 2024–2028, and another UK-led OEWG on reducing space threats through norms, rules, and principles of responsible of behaviors from 2025–2026.
This year, Brazil, Egypt, and others tabled a resolution calling for a merging of the two groups. Brazil argued that the two OEWGs would impose a massive financial burden on all UN member states and create a challenge for adequate participation by many states. “But above all,” Brazil pointed out, “given their different mandates, objectives and timeframes, the chances that the two OEWGs might work in a harmonious and complementary manner are very slim.” Many states supported this approach, with most voting in favor of the proposal to merge the groups. But Russia objected to it, raising questions about how successful the merger will be next year.
Actions Speak Louder
Moving forward from the First Committee, states and civil society now have to put these and other other resolutions adopted to work. Concrete action is necessary. As the chair of the First Committee, Ambassador Maritza Chan of Costa Rica, said to states in her closing remarks, “We must cooperate, not compete, with each other, in order to survive and thrive in our dynamic world. The changes and developments in our world are not out of our hands. We are responsible for the decisions that can take us deeper into conflict and mistrust, or that can honour the dreams of those who created the UN Charter in the ashes of war, to save succeeding generations from that kind of horror.”
This post expresses the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative (ACCPI), Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, or Harvard University.
Share this:
Like this: