<![CDATA[Purpose: This article examines whether existing International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is sufficiently enforceable against Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) and identifies mechanisms needed to close the emerging enforcement gap under the Geneva Conventions.Methodology: The study adopts a qualitative doctrinal and documentary design, analyzing the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, United Nations resolutions, International Committee of the Red Cross positions, and peer reviewed scholarship published mainly between 2021 and 2026.Results: IHL already applies to autonomous weapons in principle, yet distinction, proportionality, and precautionary obligations become difficult to operationalize once targeting functions are delegated to machines, and attribution of responsibility is complicated by opaque software behavior and fragmented decision chains.Conclusions: Bridging the enforcement gap requires a layered regime combining strengthened Article 36 weapons reviews, meaningful human control, traceability requirements, robust post use investigation, and a new binding instrument addressing unpredictable or person targeting systems.Limitations: The study relies on open source doctrinal and policy materials rather than classified operational data, and normative proposals cannot yet be tested against completed state practice.Contributions: The article contributes an integrated accountability model for LAWS governance relevant to treaty negotiators, military legal advisers, and Global South states seeking to align procurement with humanitarian obligations.]]>
Copyrights © 2027
