SPECPOL

Topic A- The Question of Autonomous Weapons Systems and Lethal AI in Conflict

The proliferation of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) and lethal AI in armed conflict represents one of the most unpredictable and difficult to traverse challenges of modern warfare. Around the globe there are roughly dozens of nations actively developing algorithmic and unmanned military hardware across land, sea, and air domains. When these systems are deployed without meaningful human control they go from being a force of defense to a dangerous time bomb that could go off from any technical disturbances. A single targeting miscalculation, algorithmic bias glitch, or sensor failure aimed at contested areas can cause the catastrophic eradication of civilian populations. This causes widespread humanitarian destructions and makes conflict zones un-survivable for decades; multi-generational psychological trauma emerges from the ashes as well as the long term normalization of dehumanized slaughter affecting communities even surrounding the immediate combat theater.

The main documentation governing this issue is the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), evaluated alongside the ethical safeguards of the Martens Clause and Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. It mandates that newly developed means of warfare must not be indiscriminate or cause unnecessary suffering, requiring human conscience and accountability even during vital military objectives as automated attacks can cause the significant loss of life amongst the non-combatant population. The modern reality of modern warfare however has shown many gaps in compliance and enforcement. Leading military powers and non-state insurgent entities exploit legal ambiguities and commercial off-the-shelf software as "technological shields," positioning unaccountable algorithms and autonomous swarms on frontlines to evade individual criminal responsibility. This is a direct violation of international humanitarian norms and tests the limits of international law.

Topic B- Addressing the Issue of Foreign Disinformation and Interference in Democratic Processes

The covert deployment of foreign disinformation and digital interference represents one of the most insidious and difficult to traverse challenges of modern sovereignty. Around the globe there are roughly billions of voters participating in elections across more than one hundred democratic states each year. When national information ecosystems are infiltrated by foreign influence operations they go from being a force of civic engagement to a dangerous time bomb that could go off from any political disturbances. A single coordinated bot campaign, synthetic deepfake broadcast, or foreign state-sponsored cyber leak aimed at election infrastructure can cause the catastrophic collapse of democratic legitimacy. This causes widespread institutional destructions and makes civic trust un-recoverable for decades; multi-generational societal divisions emerge from the ashes as well as the long term destabilization of governance spreading to countries even surrounding the targeted nation.

The main documentation governing this issue is Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations, alongside Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and landmark General Assembly resolutions on state sovereignty in cyberspace. It strictly prohibits external intervention in the domestic affairs and political choices of sovereign states, protecting citizens' rights to freely choose their representatives even amidst foreign diplomatic friction as external subversion can cause the significant loss of self-determination amongst the civilian population. The modern reality of digital interconnectedness however has shown many gaps in compliance and enforcement. Hostile state intelligence apparatuses and state-sponsored hacker syndicates exploit borderless social platforms as "proxy shields," positioning anonymous cyber assets and synthetic content behind plausible deniability to evade formal diplomatic consequences. This is a direct violation of international sovereignty norms and tests the limits of international law.