On 30 May 2013 in Geneva, nations for the first time ever debated what to do about fully autonomous weapons at the United Nations Human Rights Council following the presentation of the report on ‘lethal autonomous robotic weapons’ by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Professor Christof Heyns.
During the "interactive dialogue," 20 nations spoke for up to three minutes each on the report's findings on fully autonomous weapons: Algeria, Argentina (GRULAC), Austria, Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and US. There were also statements by the European Union (comprised of 27 states) and Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (56 states).
All these nations expressed interest and concern in the challenges posed by fully autonomous weapons. None opposed discussing the issue further. Pakistan expressed its support for a ban, while others endorsed the report's call for a moratorium. The United Kingdom was the only state to declare its opposition to the call for a moratorium or a ban on fully autonomous weapons. Brazil and France suggested the Convention on Conventional Weapons as a venue for discussing the topic further.
Sweden explained that it is traditionally responsible for the resolution on the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. It said the resolution will be put forward in 2014 at the 26th session of the Human Rights Council (this is currently the 23rd session). Sweden indicated that the resolution will include operative paragraphs on the recommendations contained in the report.
The United Nations disarmament chief Angela Kane provided a statement delivered by Jarmo Sareva that noted, "[t]he emergence of autonomous weapons calls into question the adequacy of measures to implement the rules of armed conflict that apply to the use of all weapon systems. The purpose of these rules is clear. The major imperative is to protect civilians from unacceptable harm. There must also be adequate human accountability at all times. Yet, one key question posed by autonomous weapons is how can accountability be maintained when humans are no longer involved in the final decision?"