Last week, Mines Action Canada participated in the Convention on Conventional Weapons' Group of Governmental Experts Meeting on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems at the UN in Geneva.

During the final session on the Way Forward, our Executive Director, delivered a statement sharing views on what needs to happen next and how young people are viewing the topic. Here's that statement:

The Way Forward

Thank you Chair. As this is the first time, Mines Action Canada is taking the floor, I would like to thank you and your team for all the work and for your commitment to the inclusion of civil society in these discussions.

Mines Action Canada, as a co-founder of Stop Killer Robots, has been following the CCW LAWS discussions for over a decade. Collectively we have made significant progress, but we agree with the joint statement delivered by on behalf of 42 states - now is time to formalize these discussions into negotiations on a new instrument on autonomous weapons.

That is the way forward.

Whether that path goes through the CCW or another body, that is for you the states to decide.

I understand that taking the first steps along that path will require courage.

To help you be bold, I would like to share some insights from the students we work with.

For several years, Mines Action Canada has partnered with the Canadian Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Ethical Design Lab (CRAiEDL), at the University of Ottawa to be a client for an introductory design course within the Faculty of Engineering where students learn about project design by solving engineering problems for their “clients”. For our classes, the problems highlight the dangers of autonomous weapons systems.

From January to April 2025, these students were working in teams to repurpose commercial robots that were intended to be “Battle Bots”. These commercial robots come equipped with a gun style turret that can shoot pellets and is marketed towards students in a not-so-subtle attempt to normalize the weaponization of robotics. Once they were done repurposing their robot for peaceful uses, they wrote manifestos from the perspective of the robot.

The students are unanimously against the development and use of autonomous weapons and want clear legal guidelines as they start careers in engineering.

Keefer, Badriye, Umaid, Onyeukwu, and Michael wrote that:

“Teaching students to program robots for warfare normalizes the idea that conflict can be mechanized. That killing can be automated. That war is just another system to optimize. But technology shapes us just as much as we shape it, and the more we design machines to hurt, the more we become comfortable with harm.”

David, Ryanne, Lilyanna, Kiersten, and Christine say that:

“Meaningful human control is lost over time as the use of autonomous weapons gives too much power to the inanimate. No one is there to claim accountability for the violence enabled, and yet the consequences remain. This cycle of violence leads to nothing but human fear and distrust in technology.”

And finally, Mame Yacine, Harudaipartap, Zaina, Phoenix, and Jeremy would like to remind you that:

“The future of technology is not predetermined - it is in our hands. We must ask ourselves: Will we continue down a path of digital dehumanization, or will we use technology to uplift and protect?”

I hope that you will take these words into consideration as you discuss the ways forward.

Thank you.