DWPS MUN AJMER 3.
0
THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN
RIGHTS COUNCIL
Background Guide
Agenda:-
“Protection of Human Rights in
the Age of AI and Autonomous
Weapon Systems”
Table of Contents
Letter from the Executive Board • Past UN & Global Actions
Introduction to the Committee UN Initiatives
Mandate of the Committee Regional Progress
Introduction to the agenda • Possible topics for Debate and Questions
that the resolution must answer
Key Terms
• Further Reads
Relevance of the Agenda
The Regulatory Gap
Specific Areas of Legal Inadequacy
Emerging Human Rights Challenges
The Bias-Autonomy Dilemma
Accountability Challenges
Key Accountability Gaps
Documented Accountability Failures
Implications for Human Rights Protection
The Imperative for UNHRC Action
Key Stakeholders and Their Positions on AI and Autonomous Weapons
International Legal Frameworks
Existing Instruments
Recent Developments
Case Studies & Real World Examples
COMPAS Algorithm (United States)
China’s Uyghur Surveillance
Libya Autonomous Weapons(2020)
Amsterdam’s Algorithm Register
Letter from the Executive Board
Greetings Delegates,
It gives us immense pleasure to welcome you all to the United Nations Human Rights Council
(UNHRC). As you prepare to commence your deliberation on one of the most pressing issues of our
time, we urge you all to approach this upcoming session with diligence, foresight, and a steadfast
commitment to upholding human dignity.
The rapid advancement of AI and autonomous technologies presents unprecedented opportunities for
societal progress, yet it also raises profound ethical, legal, and humanitarian challenges. From
algorithmic bias and mass surveillance to the deployment of lethal autonomous weapons, these
innovations test the limits of existing human rights frameworks. As representatives of the international
community, you are tasked with forging solutions that reconcile technological innovation with the
imperatives of justice, accountability, and the protection of fundamental freedoms.
Solving this pivotal issue requires collaborative spirit, creative problem solving, diplomatic rigour
while being mindful of your foreign policy. In addition to the information given in the background
guide, it is encouraged for members to research extensively on the agenda and have a reflection of their
understanding on this topic. The final recommended reading lists outlines some of the critical
documents in the field, and broad questions on looking at the agenda.
We urge all representatives to engage in constructive dialogue, leveraging their national/ individual
perspectives to achieve a consensus on governance structures, ethical parameters, and accountability
measures. Your insights will contribute to a historic framework that balances innovation with
responsibility.
Looking forward to seeing you all and hope that this two-day conference will be a great learning
experience for you all.
Warm Regards and Best Wishes
The Executive Board
The United Nations Human Rights Council
Introduction to the Committee
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) was established by the UN General Assembly
on 15 March 2006, replacing the former UN Commission on Human Rights. It is tasked with
promoting and protecting human rights, addressing violations, and making recommendations
globally.
It comprises 47 member states elected for three-year terms. It functions through regular sessions,
urgent special sessions, and mechanisms like the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and Special
Procedures (independent human rights experts).
In an era dominated by technological innovation, delegates will engage in high-level diplomatic
negotiations, balancing national interests with the imperative to uphold fundamental rights. The
discussion on AI and autonomous weapons presents a critical test for the UNHRC's ability to adapt to
21st-century challenges while safeguarding human dignity, accountability, and global security.
Delegates must craft solutions that reconcile innovation with ethical governance, ensuring technology
serves humanity—not the other way around.
Mandate of the Committee
The UNHRC operates with a broad mandate grounded in the Charter of the United Nations, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other core treaties. Its responsibilities include:
● Promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
● Addressing violations and making recommendations on both country-specific and thematic
issues.
● Convening discussions on pressing global human rights challenges.
● Reviewing human rights records of all UN Member States through the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR).
● Collaborating with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society, and national
institutions to ensure inclusive dialogue.
● The Council's work influences treaty development, state behaviour, and normative
frameworks—a crucial influence as AI and AWS reshape how societies function and wars are
fought.
Introduction to the agenda
Artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems represent both unprecedented opportunities
and profound challenges for human rights protection. AI systems now influence critical decisions in
criminal justice, healthcare, employment, and military operations, affecting billions of people daily.
The agenda "Protection of Human Rights in the Age of AI and Autonomous Weapon Systems"
addresses the growing concerns surrounding the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence
(AI) and autonomous weapons on fundamental human rights. As AI technologies advance rapidly,
their integration into military systems, law enforcement, and surveillance poses significant risks,
including violations of privacy, discrimination, and threats to life and security. It is imperative to
examine how these technologies align with international human rights law.
A key focus of this agenda is the potential for AI-driven systems to perpetuate bias, exacerbate
inequality, and enable mass surveillance, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
Facial recognition, predictive policing, and algorithm-based decision-making in judicial or social
systems raise critical questions about transparency, accountability, and the right to a fair trial.
Additionally, lethal autonomous weapons systems challenge existing legal frameworks, as they may
operate without meaningful human control, leading to unlawful killings and violations of the right to
life under international law.
The committee will assess regulatory and oversight mechanisms to ensure AI and autonomous
weapons systems adhere to international human rights standards. Discussions may encompass
measures such as prohibitions on fully autonomous lethal systems, enhanced regulatory oversight of
surveillance applications, and binding multilateral agreements to prevent technological abuse. The
engagement of private sector actors, member states, and civil society will be vital in formulating
comprehensive ethical AI governance. Through coordinated international action, the UNHRC can
advance the protection of human dignity, establish accountability frameworks, and mitigate risks in
our increasingly automated global landscape.
Key Terms
1. Artificial Intelligence (AI): A branch of computer science focused on creating systems
capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as decision-making,
pattern recognition, and language processing. AI impacts human rights through applications in
surveillance, predictive policing, and autonomous weapons, raising concerns about bias,
accountability, and privacy.
2. Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) / Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS):
Military systems that can identify, select, and engage targets without direct human intervention.
Their use challenges international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law by removing
human judgment in life-and-death decisions, risking unlawful killings and lack of
accountability.
3. Human Rights Law (HRL): International legal framework safeguarding the fundamental
rights and freedoms of all individuals under all circumstances, encompassing civil, political,
economic, social, and cultural rights as codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and subsequent human rights instruments.
4. International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Legal framework governing the conduct of armed
conflict, establishing rules for the protection of civilians and combatants hors de combat, while
regulating the means and methods of warfare through principles of distinction, proportionality,
and precaution.
5. Algorithmic Bias: Systemic errors in AI decision-making that result in unfair outcomes, often
due to biased training data or flawed design. It can lead to discrimination in policing, hiring, and
judicial systems, violating rights to equality and fair treatment.
6. Right to Privacy: The right to control one's personal data and be free from unwarranted
surveillance.
7. Predictive Policing: Use of AI to analyze data and predict crime hotspots or identify potential
offenders. Risks reinforcing racial/social biases and violating rights to presumption of
innocence.
8. Dual-Use Technology: Technologies (like AI) that can be used for both civilian benefits and
military harm. It raises ethical dilemmas in regulating AI development to prevent misuse in
warfare or repression.
9. Precautionary Principle: A policy approach that restricts new technologies until proven safe,
minimizing potential harm. It suggests a moratorium or ban on high-risk AI applications (e.g.,
AWS) until safeguards are established.
10. Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) vs. Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL):
HITL: A human must approve every AI-driven decision (e.g., drone strikes).
HOTL: Humans oversee but do not directly control each action (e.g., autonomous sentry
guns).
11. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) – A UN treaty aimed at restricting
the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering.
12. Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) – A UN-established group that discusses and
provides recommendations on emerging security technologies, including LAWS.
13. Meaningful Human Control (MHC) – The principle that humans should retain control over
AI-based weapons to ensure accountability and ethical use.
Relevance of the Agenda
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and autonomous weapon systems presents
fundamental challenges to the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. As these
technologies become increasingly integrated into military operations, law enforcement practices, and
civilian governance structures, they raise critical questions about the adequacy of existing
international legal frameworks and the Council's mandate to safeguard human dignity.
The Regulatory Gap
The current international legal architecture, developed primarily to address conventional warfare and
traditional human rights violations, faces significant limitations in regulating AI-driven systems.
These technologies operate at unprecedented speeds and scales, creating decision-making processes
that often exceed the scope of traditional oversight mechanisms.
While foundational human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establish core principles for protecting life and
privacy, they lack the specificity required to address the unique challenges posed by autonomous
systems.
Specific Areas of Legal Inadequacy
Current international frameworks demonstrate particular weaknesses in addressing several critical
areas:
Algorithmic Bias in Justice Systems: AI tools used in policing and judicial processes have shown
disproportionate targeting of minority communities, as evidenced by systems like the COMPAS
recidivism algorithm, yet existing anti-discrimination frameworks struggle to address these automated
decision-making processes.
Mass Surveillance Technologies: State deployment of AI-driven monitoring systems, such as
comprehensive social credit systems, operates within legal gray areas where privacy protections
remain unclear and enforcement mechanisms are insufficient.
Lethal Autonomous Weapons: Unlike biological and chemical weapons, no explicit international
prohibition exists for fully autonomous lethal systems, and the international community has yet to
establish universally accepted definitions for these technologies.
Emerging Human Rights Challenges
1. Threats to Civil and Political Rights: AI-powered surveillance systems enable unprecedented
monitoring capabilities that may infringe upon fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of
expression. Facial recognition technologies and predictive policing algorithms have demonstrated
potential for disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, raising concerns about
equality and non-discrimination.
2. Challenges to the Right to Life: Autonomous weapon systems capable of selecting and engaging
targets without meaningful human control present serious implications for the right to life. The
removal of direct human decision-making from lethal force scenarios challenges established
principles of international humanitarian law and human rights law.
3. Algorithmic Discrimination and Equality: AI systems trained on biased datasets have shown
tendencies to perpetuate and amplify existing inequalities. From judicial sentencing algorithms to
employment screening processes, these systems risk institutionalizing discriminatory practices
while obscuring accountability through technical complexity.
The Bias-Autonomy Dilemma
A fundamental tension exists between addressing AI bias and maintaining human agency. AI systems
inevitably inherit biases from human-generated training data, yet increasing AI autonomy to minimize
human bias risks displacing human decision-making entirely. This raises essential questions about the
appropriate balance between technological capability and human oversight.
The Council must consider whether regulatory approaches should prioritize bias mitigation through
transparency and human control, or whether certain autonomous applications may be acceptable when
they enhance rather than replace human judgment.
Accountability Challenges
The attribution of responsibility for AI-related human rights violations presents complex challenges
under current legal frameworks. When autonomous systems cause harm, determining accountability
among programmers, military commanders, corporate developers, and authorizing officials remains
unclear.
Key Accountability Gaps:
Diffused Responsibility: AI systems involve multiple stakeholders across development, deployment,
and operational phases, making fault attribution difficult when violations occur.
Algorithmic Opacity: Many AI systems, particularly those using deep learning, operate as "black
boxes" where decision-making processes remain unexplainable even to their creators, complicating
the determination of whether violations result from errors, bias, or misuse.
Corporate Liability: Private companies developing AI for military or surveillance applications often
avoid accountability by claiming they provide technology rather than decision-making capability.
Documented Accountability Failures:
Recent incidents illustrate these challenges in practice. The 2021 Libya incident involving a Turkish
Kargu-2 drone that potentially engaged targets autonomously highlighted the absence of individual
accountability mechanisms under existing laws. Similarly, predictive policing algorithms in various
jurisdictions have demonstrated discriminatory impacts on minority communities, yet courts have
struggled to assign liability for these algorithmic decisions.
Implications for Human Rights Protection
The unchecked development of AI and autonomous weapons systems threatens to undermine decades
of human rights progress. Without adequate regulatory frameworks, these technologies may enable
systematic violations while operating beyond the reach of traditional accountability mechanisms.
The proliferation of these systems without appropriate safeguards risks creating conditions where:
● Lethal force decisions are made without human oversight
● Mass surveillance occurs without adequate privacy protections
● Discriminatory algorithms operate without meaningful redress mechanisms
● Democratic freedoms are eroded through technological control
The Imperative for UNHRC Action
The United Nations Human Rights Council's mandate to promote and protect human rights globally
positions it as a critical forum for addressing these challenges. The Council's ability to convene
discussions on pressing human rights issues, make recommendations, and influence normative
frameworks makes it uniquely suited to address the intersection of technology and human rights.
This agenda represents an opportunity for the Council to establish governance principles that preserve
human dignity while enabling beneficial technological development. Through multilateral dialogue
and cooperation, member states can work toward frameworks that ensure technological advancement
serves to enhance rather than undermine human rights protection.
The deliberations on this agenda will significantly influence whether international human rights law
can effectively adapt to 21st-century technological realities or whether these developments will
proceed without adequate legal constraints and oversight mechanisms.
Key Stakeholders and Their Positions on AI and Autonomous Weapons
1. States Supporting a Ban or Moratorium (e.g., Austria, Brazil, Algeria, Pakistan): A
coalition of nations, primarily from the Global South and non-aligned blocs, supports a pre-
emptive ban on autonomous weapons. Countries like Austria and Brazil argue that AWS
undermine human dignity and the principle of proportionality in war. The African Group and
the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) have raised concerns about AI-driven surveillance and
weapons exacerbating global inequality. Many of these states push for a new international
treaty modelled after the Ottawa Convention (landmines ban) or the Chemical Weapons
Convention.
2. States Opposing a Ban (e.g., U.S., Russia, Israel, UK, South Korea): Major military powers,
including the U.S., Russia, and Israel, resist binding restrictions, arguing that existing laws
(e.g., Geneva Conventions) are sufficient. They claim AI can enhance military precision,
reducing civilian casualties. The U.S. supports non-binding ethical guidelines rather than
prohibitions, while Russia and China invest heavily in AI-driven military tech, viewing it as a
strategic necessity. The UK and France advocate for human oversight (Human-in-the-Loop
policies) but oppose outright bans, fearing it could disadvantage their defense sectors.
3. Tech Companies & Defense Contractors (e.g., Google, Palantir, Lockheed Martin,
Huawei): The tech industry is divided. Some companies, like Google (after employee
protests), pledged not to develop AI for weapons, while others, such as Palantir and defense
contractors, actively work on military AI. Many firms support soft regulation—voluntary
ethical frameworks—to avoid stifling innovation. However, civil society groups accuse them
of profiting from human rights risks, particularly in surveillance and predictive policing.
4. Civil Society & Advocacy Groups (e.g., Human Rights Watch, Campaign to Stop Killer
Robots, Algorithmic Justice League): Organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and
the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots demand a total ban on AWS, warning of accountability
gaps and unlawful killings. The Algorithmic Justice League focuses on racial bias in AI, urging
bans on facial recognition in policing. These groups lobby the UNHRC to adopt legally binding
measures and pressure corporations to halt military AI development.
5. Academia & AI Ethics Experts: Scholars in AI ethics (e.g., Stuart Russell, Joy Buolamwini)
highlight the dangers of biased algorithms and autonomous targeting. Many support
moratoriums until safeguards are in place, while others argue for "meaningful human control"
in all lethal decisions. Research institutions like the Future of Life Institute advocate for global
governance frameworks to prevent an AI arms race.
6. Private Military & Security Companies (PMSCs): Firms like Blackwater (now Academi)
and Wagner Group may exploit autonomous weapons for asymmetric warfare, raising concerns
about unregulated mercenary use. Their involvement complicates accountability, as they
operate outside traditional military chains of command.
7. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) & International Bodies: The UNHRC,
along with entities like the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), advocates for strict regulation of AI and
autonomous weapons to prevent human rights violations. The ICRC has called for legally
binding prohibitions on fully autonomous weapons, arguing they violate International
Humanitarian Law (IHL) by removing human judgment in lethal decisions.
The debate over AI and autonomous weapons is highly polarized. Human rights advocates and some
states push for strict bans, while military powers and defense industries resist binding restrictions,
favouring controlled development. The role of the UNHRC will be crucial in balancing security
concerns with human rights protections, potentially through new treaties, ethical guidelines, or
oversight mechanisms.
International Legal Frameworks
Existing Instruments
● Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Rights to life, privacy, due process
● International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966): Binding obligations on life,
fair trial, non-discrimination2
● Geneva Conventions (1949): Humanitarian law principles applicable to autonomous
weapons3
● Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980): Framework hosting autonomous
weapons discussions since 20144
Recent Developments
UN General Assembly Resolution 78/241 (2023) added "lethal autonomous weapons systems" to
the2024 agenda5, demonstrating growing international attention. The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU)
2024/1689), which entered into force on August 1, 2024, represents the first comprehensive AI
regulation globally6.
Case Studies & Real-World Examples
COMPAS Algorithm (United States)
ProPublica's 2016 investigation revealed that the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for
Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) algorithm showed racial bias, with Black defendants flagged as
high-risk at nearly twice the rate of white defendants7. Courts have generally upheld its use despite
discrimination concerns, raising questions about due process rights and algorithmic accountability.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
[Link]
2
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
[Link]
rights
3
Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols
[Link]
4
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980)
[Link]
5
UN General Assembly Resolution 78/241 (2023) - Lethal autonomous weapon systems
[Link]
6
EU AI Act - Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
[Link]
China's Uyghur Surveillance
AI-powered surveillance system targeting ethnic minorities, combining facial recognition and
behavioural analytics to enable systematic persecution affecting over one million individuals8. This
case demonstrates how AI can enable systematic persecution of ethnic minorities, violating
fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of movement, religion, and cultural identity.
Libya Autonomous Weapons (2020)
UN experts documented potential first use of fully autonomous weapons when Turkish-made Kargu-
9
2loitering munitions allegedly engaged targets without human control . This case highlights the
immediate reality of lethal autonomous weapons and their implications for international humanitarian
law.
Amsterdam's Algorithm Register
First city to publish public registry of government AI systems, providing transparency and enabling
10
citizen challenges to automated decisions . This approach demonstrates how transparency
measures can protect due process rights and enable accountability.
Past UN & Global Actions
UN Initiatives
● CCW Process: Group of Governmental Experts meetings since 2014 have produced consensus
11
documents but no binding regulations .
12
● Special Rapporteur Reports: Established key principles for human control over lethal force .
● Recent GA Actions: 2023 resolution requesting Secretary-General views on autonomous
13
weapons challenges .
Regional Progress
· EU AI Act: The AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) is the first-ever comprehensive legal
framework on AI worldwide, setting out risk-based rules for AI developers14.
· National Legislation: Various countries implementing AI governance frameworks
Possible topics for Debate and Questions that the resolution must answer
1. Who is responsible for human rights violations caused by AI-driven decisions or autonomous
weapons?
2. How can existing international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law be adapted to
address AI-related violations?
3. Should there be a global ban on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), similar to the
Treaty on the Prohibition of nuclear weapons?
4. How can AI systems perpetuate racial, gender, or socioeconomic biases? What measures should
be taken to prevent discriminatory AI in law enforcement, hiring, and social services?
5. How do AI-driven algorithms on social media impact freedom of speech and spread
disinformation? Should governments regulate AI content moderation to prevent censorship
while curbing harmful misinformation?
6. Should the UNHRC establish a new special rapporteur or working group on AI and human
rights?
7. How can the UN collaborate with the ICC, ICJ, and other bodies to address AI-related abuses?
How will victims of AI-driven rights violations seek justice?
8. Is the use of LAWS and AWS legitimate in case of military confrontations between two states?
Does it help in asserting dominance without any loss of life, thus preserving one's right to life?
Further Reads
● [Link]
[Link]
arydomain/submissions/[Link]
● [Link]
[Link]/docs/publications/Full%20Report_AI%20and%20Human%20Rights_Rec
ommendations%20for%[Link]
● Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) UNODAUnited Nations Office for Disarmament
Affairs (UNODA)[Link] › background-on-laws-in-...
● Artificial Intelligence, Ethics and International Human ...The International Review of Information
Ethics[Link] › irie › article › view
● CCW Meetings on Lethal Autonomous Weapons
● UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics (2021)
● –HRW "Killer Robots" Campaign
● EU AI Act (2024)
● Autonomous Weapons Policy