As Israel escalates its attack on Gaza City, the UN moves to stop further violence and humanitarian violations by renewing UNIFIL’s mandate for the last time.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres at a press briefing on Israel’s plans to take over Gaza City. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 2025 (IPS) – Ahead of the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres spoke to the press on the “unfolding tragedy that is Gaza,” calling Israel’s new plans to take over Gaza City with the military a “deadly escalation” and an “existential threat to the two-state solution.”
He warned that such a move could precipitate an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe that imperiled any remaining prospects for negotiated peace.
The Secretary-General also reiterated his plea for an immediate ceasefire, emphasizing that capturing Gaza City would result in massive civilian casualties and widespread destruction—including severe impacts on the health sector already teetering on collapse.
At the daily press briefing, spokesperson for the Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric reported on the displacement in Gaza since Israel’s most recent invasion, confirming the Secretary-General’s statements about refugees. UN experts report that the total number of people who have fled from north Gaza to south Gaza since August 14, when the Israeli invasion was announced, is 20,000.
The Secretary-General went on to address the most recent Israeli air strike on the Nasser Hospital in the southern Strip of Gaza, where at least 20 people were killed and 50 others were injured. Israel’s military defended the strike by asserting that it targeted a camera used by Hamas to surveil troop movements.
Dorothy Shea, United States ambassador to the United Nations, defended Israeli actions and urged condemnation of Hamas’ use of civilian facilities for military purposes. She also noted the Hamas members killed by the airstrike.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement calling the strike a “tragic mishap” with no mention of a specific Hamas target. The Secretary-General called for an impartial investigation into these contrasting claims.
Although Netanyahu reaffirmed his respect for journalists on X, formerly known as Twitter, UNESCO reported at least 62 journalists and media workers killed in Palestine while working since October 2023. At least five journalists were killed in the Nasser air strike, according to World Health Organization Director Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus.
At the Security Council meeting debating whether or not to renew the mandate for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), many representatives acknowledged Israel’s current military action and called UNIFIL’s work “vital” in maintaining borders, minimizing conflict and stabilizing tensions.
The representative for Algeria Amar Bendjama was critical of UNIFIL’s failures, but spoke in favor of the renewal. He said, “We must ask, has UNIFIL fulfilled its mandate? Clearly, the answer is no. Lebanese lines remain under Israeli occupation, and we regret that our proposal to include a clear reference to the 1949 general armistice agreement was not retained. Without ending Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, peace and stability in the region will remain elusive.”
UNIFIL was initially created in 1978 to oversee Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. The mandate was adjusted and has played a significant role in maintaining Lebanese army control on the border between Lebanon and Israel rather than Hezbollah, a paramilitary organization, taking over. Critics, led by the United States, see the mandate as a waste of money that has helped Hezbollah consolidate power.
Dujarrac emphasized the necessity of all participating parties to respect UNIFIL’s mandate for it to successfully fulfill its promises.
The Council ultimately voted to renew UNIFIL’s mandate, with many members stressing that the mission continues to play an important role in preventing further escalation along the Israel-Lebanon border.
Guterres’s warnings on Gaza and the debate over UNIFIL underscored the overlapping crises in the region that face the Security Council.
As displacement in Gaza mounts and humanitarian needs continue to fester, UNIFIL’s renewal has bought time rather than answers for a region caught between humanitarian crisis and unresolved conflict.
Eloy Alfaro de Alba (with gavel), Permanent Representative of Panama to the United Nations and President of the Security Council for the Month of August, chairs the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 21 2025 (IPS) – Human rights groups have expressed alarm over the surge in unprecedented executions in Saudi Arabia in 2025. Humanitarian experts have underscored the Saudi Arabian monarchy’s use of the death penalty to silence peaceful dissent among civilians and impose justice for minor offenses, with little to no due process.
On August 11, Human Rights Watch (HRW) raised the alarm on the rise in executions of civilians and foreign nationals in Saudi Arabia. Their new report highlighted the June 14 execution of journalist Turki al-Jasser, who worked to expose corruption and human rights violations linked to the Saudi monarchy.
Following al-Jasser’s execution, Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry issued a statement in which it accused al-Jasser of committing “terrorist crimes” and “destabilizing the security of society and the stability of the state”. This follows the 2024 execution of Abdullah al-Shamri, a Saudi political analyst, after appearing as a political commentator on broadcast news for prominent media organizations.
“The June 2025 execution of Saudi journalist Turki al-Jasser, after seven years of arbitrary imprisonment on fabricated charges over his online publications, is a chilling testament to the kingdom’s zero tolerance to peaceful dissent and criticism, and a grim reminder of the peril journalists face in Saudi Arabia,” said Sylvia Mbataru, a researcher of civic space at CIVICUS Global Alliance.
HRW reports that Saudi authorities are pursuing the death penalty against Islamic scholar Salman al-Odah and religious reformist activist Hassan Farhan al-Maliki on vague charges related to the peaceful and public expression of their beliefs.
“Behind closed doors, Saudi Arabia is executing peaceful activists and journalists following politicized trials,” said Abdullah Alaoudh, senior director of countering authoritarianism at the Middle East Democracy Center. “These state-sanctioned killings are an assault on basic human rights and dignity that the world cannot afford to ignore.”
Figures from HRW show that as of August 5, Saudi authorities had carried out over 241 executions in 2025. including 22 alone on the week of August 4. Amnesty International reports that 2024 set a new record for annual executions in Saudi Arabia, documenting at least 345. The human rights organization Reprieve projects that if executions are carried out at the same rate, 2025 could exceed all prior records.
“Saudi authorities have weaponized the country’s justice system to carry out a terrifying number of executions in 2025,” said Joey Shea, researcher for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at Human Rights Watch. “The surge in executions is just the latest evidence of the brutally autocratic rule of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.”
Estimates from Reprieve show that roughly 162 of this year’s recorded executions were for minor drug-related offenses, with over half involving foreign nationals. HRW reports that none of these executions followed due process, making it highly unlikely that any of those executed received a fair trial.
“Saudi Arabia’s relentless and ruthless use of the death penalty after grossly unfair trials not only demonstrates a chilling disregard for human life; its application for drug-related offenses is also an egregious violation of international law and standards,” said Kristine Beckerle, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“We are witnessing a truly horrifying trend, with foreign nationals being put to death at a startling rate for crimes that should never carry the death penalty. This report exposes the dark and deadly reality behind the progressive image that the authorities attempt to project globally.”
Earlier this year, Amnesty International, the European Saudi Organization for Human Rights, and Justice Project Pakistan documented the cases of 25 foreign nations who were on death row or have been executed in Saudi Arabia for drug-related offenses. The investigation found that the majority of individuals on death row were not afforded their fundamental human rights, such as access to a legal representative, interpretation services, and consular support. Additionally, Amnesty International reported that in many of these cases, individuals from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds faced heightened risks of discrimination in legal proceedings.
Furthermore, it was reported that at least four of these cases involved the use of torture and ill treatment in detention facilities to extract confessions from individuals charged with drug-related crimes. For many of these individuals, their families were not informed of the status of their convictions and were only notified of an execution the day prior. In all cases of execution, Amnesty International reported that the bodies of executed individuals were withheld by Saudi authorities.
The recent surge in executions has drawn immense criticism from human rights groups for violating international humanitarian law. Although Saudi Arabia has not acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN that promoted an inherent right to life and due process, it has ratified the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which obligates that Saudi Arabian security forces are only to use the death penalty for the “most serious crimes”.
Mandeep Tiwana, the Secretary-General of CIVICUS Global Alliance, informed IPS that the current civic space conditions in Saudi Arabia are listed as “closed”, indicating that civilians hold little to no power and are bereft of the ability to represent themselves in governmental affairs and peacefully dissent. “This means that those who criticize the authorities or engage in protests of any kind or seek to form associations that demand transformational change can face severe forms of persecution including imprisonment for long periods, physical abuse and even death.”
In Sudan, women-led households are three times more likely to deal with serious food insecurity compared to male-led households. Credit: UN Women Sudan
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 12 2025 (IPS) – The food crisis in Sudan is starving more day by day, yet it is affecting women and girls at double the rate compared to men in the same areas. New findings from UN-Women reveal that female-headed households (FHHs) are three times more likely to be food insecure than ones led by men.
Women and girls make up half of the starving in Sudan, at 15.3 million of the 30.4 million people currently in need. In the midst of the current humanitarian crisis brought on by the Sudanese civil war, women are increasingly seen to be leading households in the absence of men due to death, disappearances or displacement amidst the civil war, making simply living in a FHH a statistical predictor of hunger.
“With conditions now at near famine thresholds in several regions in the country, it is not just a food crisis, but a gender emergency caused by a failure of gender-responsive action,” said Salvator Nkuruniza, the UN-Women representative for Sudan.
Famine Risks for Sudan’s Women
This famine has left only 1.9 percent of FFHs food secure, compared to 5.9 percent of male-headed households (MHHs) reporting food security. 45 percent of the FHHs reported poor food consumption which was nearly double the rate as compared to MHHs at 25.7 percent. Considering this, only one third of FHHs have an acceptable diet in comparison to half of MHHs. In these worsening conditions 73.7 percent of women nationally are not meeting the minimum dietary diversity, which is limiting nutrient intake and thus endangering maternal and child health.
Rates of poor food consumption have doubled in one year across FHHs, meaning a longer drawn conflict will see even worse numbers leading to the ultimate starvation of many. Nearly 15 percent of FHHs are living in conditions that meet or are near famine thresholds compared to only 7 percent of MHHs meeting the same threshold.
With all available funding, the World Food Programme (WFP) has scaled assistance to support nearly 4 million people per month, leaving an additional 26 million people still in need of support. As one representative from the UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) told IPS, under these circumstances WFP has had to make tough calls, either shrinking assistance packages or reducing the amount of people who receive assistance. There have been cases where they have been forced to cut off all assistance in general.
Within Sudan’s civil society, women-led organizations (WLO) are playing a central role in delivering vital meals to affected groups across Sudan. Nkurunziza told IPS that “WLOS are the backbone of response in many areas,” who can access areas which the international system cannot reach. WLOs in West Kordofan are solarizing clinics, running nutrition outreach, managing mobile maternal health care, and operating informal shelters. In North Kordofan, WLOs. are running protection hotlines, distributing food, and helping displaced families find safety. Many times they are providing these services without institutional funding.
UN Women has been supporting 45 WLOs with institutional support, funding and technical assistance, which has allowed these organizations to operate across sixteen states. However, underfunding still remains a critical issue for WLOs. Nkurunziza explained how due to funding deficits, one WLO that operates across eight states was forced to shut down thirty-five of its sixty food kitchens. WLOs must also deal with serious logistical and digital constrains, making it nearly impossible to have any form of coordination meetings. Sudan is also facing the world’s largest displacement crisis, making a shrinking of operations among deteriorating consumption rates detrimental to attempts to elevate food security.
Aid Delivery Challenges
Amidst funding shortfalls, supply chains have struggled reaching critical locations due to Sudan’s size, lack of infrastructure, and weather difficulties. WFP shared that Sudan is “roughly the size of western Europe”, and as such they and other humanitarian actors are having to transport humanitarian items over 2500 kilometers across deserts and challenging terrain. They added that road infrastructure in remote areas such as Darfur and Kordofan has further increased the difficulty. The rainy season between April and October has also added further complications, which has made many roads completely flooded or impassable.
WFP said that the conflict has not only affected supply chains, but trade routes themselves. Among the besieged cities of El Fasher and Kadulgi, supplies remain limited and far and few. WFP is “extremely concerned about the catastrophic situation, especially in El Fasher and Kadulgi and urgently [needed] guarantees of safe passage to get supplies in – while we continue supporting with digital cash transfer”. This comes amidst not being able to deliver food and aid supplies by road.
Gender Disparities and Solutions
Nkurunziza told IPS that even before the conflict, women and girls “faced challenges in accessing their rights due to cultural norms and traditional practices”, adding that this conflict has only widened these gaps.
Food access is only one example of how gender inequality manifests during this crisis. Nkurunziza noted that food queues are often dominated by men compared to women from FHHs. He added that women have been “largely left out” of decision-making spaces, therefore their specific needs are “frequently overlooked”.
The search for food has caused an increase in harmful coping mechanisms like child marriage, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation, and child labor. The nature of these harmful instances come from unchecked sexual exploitation and abuse due to the lack of law enforcement and government in many areas. Since April 2023, 1,138 cases of rape have been recorded, including 193 children. This number is expected to be even higher, as social and security fears may be preventing accurate reporting of gender-based violence crimes.
“The conflict has magnified every existing inequality,” Nkurunziza said, adding that this created the need for responsive action, moving beyond simple rhetoric.
In their report, UN Women outlined several measures that needed to be adopted in order to diminish famine conditions among women, including prioritizing food distribution and assistance planning to FHHs and establishing localized distribution sites, thus reducing movement-related risks for women. They also recommended increased representation in local aid committees and decision-making spaces by at least 40 percent. They called for increasing investment and funding to WLO’s, which are currently receiving less than 2 percent of humanitarian aid funds.
Despite these challenges, Nkurunziza said that WLOs are still working to feed families. “They are not waiting for permission — they are responding. The question is whether the system will finally recognize them as equal partners or continue to leave them behind.”
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jul 7 2025 (IPS) – When Bangladesh’s streets erupted in protest in mid-2024, few could have predicted how swiftly Sheikh Hasina’s regime would crumble. The ousting of the prime minister last August, after years of mounting authoritarianism and growing discontent, was heralded as a historic opportunity for democratic renewal. Almost a year on, the question remains whether Bangladesh is genuinely evolving towards democracy, or if one form of repression is replacing another.
The interim government, led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, confronts enormous challenges in delivering meaningful change. While it has taken significant steps – releasing political prisoners, initiating constitutional reforms, signing international human rights treaties and pursuing accountability for past violations – persistent abuses, political exclusion and economic instability continue to cast long shadows over the transition. The coming months will prove decisive in determining whether Bangladesh can truly break from its authoritarian past.
From electoral fraud to revolution
The roots of Bangladesh’s current upheaval trace back to the deeply flawed general election of 7 January 2024. The vote, which saw Hasina’s Awami League (AL) secure a fourth consecutive term, was widely dismissed as a foregone conclusion. The main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party boycotted the election in protest at the government’s refusal to reinstate a neutral caretaker system.
The government unleashed an intense crackdown ahead of the vote. It imprisoned thousands of opposition activists and weaponised the criminal justice system to silence dissent, leading to deaths in police custody and enforced disappearances. This repression extended to civil society, with human rights activists and journalists facing harassment, arbitrary detention and violence. The government sponsored fake opposition candidates to create an illusion of competition, resulting in plummeting voter turnout and a crisis of legitimacy.
When opposition rallies occurred, they were met with overwhelming force. On 28 October 2023, police responded to a major opposition protest in Dhaka with rubber bullets, teargas and stun grenades, resulting in at least 16 deaths, with thousands injured and detained.
The situation deteriorated further after the election. In June 2024, the reinstatement of a controversial quota system for public sector jobs triggered mass student-led protests that would ultimately topple Hasina’s government. These protests rapidly evolved into a broader revolt against entrenched corruption, economic inequality and political impunity.
The government’s response was systematically brutal. According to a United Nations fact-finding report, between July and August security forces killed as many as 1,400 people, including many children, often shooting protesters at point-blank range. They denied the injured medical care and intimidated hospital staff. The scale of violence eventually led the military to refuse further involvement, forcing Hasina to resign and flee Bangladesh.
Reform efforts amid political discord
The interim government identified three core priorities: institutional reforms, trials of perpetrators of political violence and elections. Its initial months brought significant progress. The government released detained protesters and human rights defenders, signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and established a commission of inquiry into enforced disappearances.
This commission documented around 1,700 complaints and found evidence of systematic use of enforced disappearances to target political opponents and activists, with direct complicity by Hasina and senior officials. In October, the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal issued arrest warrants for Hasina and 44 others for massacres during the 2024 protests, although the tribunal has a troubled history and retains the death penalty, contrary to international norms.
The Constitution Reform Commission has proposed expanding fundamental rights, with a bicameral parliament and term limits for top offices. However, the process has been undermined by the exclusion of major political players – most notably the AL – and minority groups.
Political tensions escalated as the interim government faced mounting pressure to set a general election date. Opposition parties accused it of deliberate stalling. The army chief publicly demanded elections by the end of 2025, while student groups sought postponement until reforms and justice were secured. After initial uncertainty, the government announced the election would occur in April 2026.
The most dramatic escalation came in May, when the interim government banned all AL activities under the Anti-Terrorism Act following renewed protests. The Election Commission subsequently suspended the AL’s registration, effectively barring it from future elections and fundamentally altering Bangladesh’s political landscape.
Economic challenges compound these political difficulties. Bangladesh remains fragile after devastating floods in 2024, while the banking sector faces stress from surging non-performing loans. Inflation continues outpacing wage growth and economic austerity measures agreed with the International Monetary Fund have sparked fresh protests.
Authoritarian patterns persist
Despite promises of change, old patterns of repression prove stubborn. Human rights groups document ongoing security forces abuses, including arbitrary arrests of opposition supporters and journalists, denial of due process and continued lack of accountability for past crimes. In the first two months of 2025 alone, over 1,000 police cases were filed against tens of thousands of people, mainly AL members or perceived supporters. A February crackdown on Hasina’s supporters led to over 1,300 arrests.
Press freedom remains severely threatened. In November, the interim government revoked the accreditation of 167 journalists. Around 140 journalists viewed as aligned with the previous regime have faced charges, with 25 accused of crimes against humanity, forcing many into hiding. Attacks on media outlets continue, including vandalism of newspaper offices.
The draft Cyber Protection Ordinance, intended to replace the repressive Cyber Security Act, has drawn criticism for retaining vague provisions criminalising defamation and ‘hurting religious sentiments’ while granting authorities sweeping powers for warrantless searches. Rights groups warn this law could stifle dissent in the run-up to elections.
Uncertain path forward
Bangladesh’s journey demonstrates that democratic transitions are inherently difficult, nonlinear and deeply contested processes. Democracy isn’t a guaranteed outcome, but the chances improve when political leaders are genuinely committed to reform and inclusive dialogue, and political players, civil society and the public practise sustained vigilance.
While the interim government has achieved steps unthinkable under the previous regime, the persistence of arbitrary arrests, attacks on journalists and the exclusion of key political players suggests authoritarianism’s shadow still looms large.
The upcoming general election will provide a crucial test of whether Bangladesh can finally turn the page on authoritarianism. The answer lies in whether Bangladeshis across government, civil society and beyond are able to build something genuinely new. The stakes are high in a country where many have already sacrificed much for the promise of democratic freedom.
BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jul 2 2025 (IPS) – When tanks rolled through Myanmar’s streets in 2021, civil society groups worldwide sounded the alarm. When Viktor Orbán systematically dismantled Hungary’s free press, democracy activists demanded international action. And as authoritarianism returns to Tanzania ahead of elections, it’s once again civil society calling for democratic freedoms to be respected.
Around the world, authoritarian populists have learned to maintain democratic language and rituals while gutting democracy’s substance. They hold fraudulent elections with no real opposition and crack down on civil society when it tries to uphold democratic freedoms. As a result, more than 70 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries where civic space is routinely repressed.
In response, over 175 civil society organisations and 500 activists have united behind a demand to help improve respect for democratic freedoms, calling on the UN to establish a Special Rapporteur on Democracy.
The proposal isn’t coming from diplomatic corridors or academia; it’s a grassroots call from the frontlines of a global democratic struggle. Democracy defenders who face harassment, imprisonment and violence have identified a gap in international oversight that emboldens authoritarians and lets down those fighting for democratic rights when they most need support.
Critical blind spots
While the UN investigates everything from torture to toxic waste through specialised rapporteurs, democracy – supposedly a core UN principle – receives no systematic international oversight. This is a blind spot civil society wants to change.
Today’s threats to democracy are often more subtle than outright coups and blatant election rigging. Repressive leaders have mastered the art of legal authoritarianism, using constitutional amendments to extend term limits, judicial re-engineering to capture courts and media laws to silence critics, all while maintaining a facade of democratic governance.
In countries from Belarus to Venezuela, elections have been turned into elaborate ceremonies emptied of competition. Even established democracies face growing challenges, with foreign influence and disinformation campaigns documented across dozens of recent elections, often amplified by AI that creates deepfakes faster than fact-checkers can debunk them.
The rise of right-wing populism across Europe and in the USA shows how easily democratic processes can elevate leaders who systematically undermine democratic institutions from within, weaponising the law to concentrate executive authority, criminalise opposition and restrict civic space.
These evolving threats expose fundamental gaps in how the international community monitors and responds to democratic regression. The proposed UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy would help fill this gap: unlike current mandates that focus on specific rights, this role would examine how democratic systems function as a whole.
Existing UN Special Rapporteurs have recognised the urgent need for dedicated democracy oversight, with the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, freedom of opinion and expression, and the independence of judges and lawyers highlighting how democratic backsliding undermines the rights they’re mandated to protect.
A democracy rapporteur could investigate the full spectrum of threats that escape international attention: how electoral systems become compromised through legal manipulation, how parliamentary oversight gets systematically weakened while maintaining constitutional appearances, how judicial independence is eroded through seemingly legitimate reforms, and how meaningful participation beyond elections gets stifled through bureaucratic restrictions.
Crucially, the mandate could document not just obvious authoritarian crackdowns but the subtler forms of democratic erosion that often escape international notice until democratic institutions are compromised, offering early warnings about gradual processes that transform vibrant democracies into hollow shells.
Legal foundations
The proposal builds on solid legal foundations. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that ‘public authority must derive from the will of the people’, while article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises every citizen’s right to participate in public affairs and vote in free, fair and clean periodic elections.
Regional mechanisms provide valuable precedents. The Inter-American Democratic Charter explicitly states that ‘the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it’. Building on this, Guatemala has recently requested an advisory opinion to clarify whether democracy constitutes a fundamental human right and what tangible obligations this imposes on states.
These foundations provide an actionable definition of democracy that respects diverse democratic models while upholding universal principles, sidestepping cultural relativist arguments that some authoritarian governments use to avoid accountability.
Momentum building
The proposal has generated remarkable momentum. On the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a broad coalition of civil society groups and think tanks published a joint statement calling for the appointment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy.
Civil society leadership reflects widespread frustration among democracy activists who work under increasingly dangerous conditions and demand better institutional responses. Budget-conscious states should find this proposal attractive given the remarkable cost-effectiveness of the UN mandates system. Following standard UN practice, the new position would be unpaid, relying on voluntary funding from supportive states.
During its recent 58th session, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, conferring multilateral legitimacy on governments that want to support stronger democracy oversight. The window for action is open, but it won’t stay open indefinitely.
A test for international institutions
No single initiative will reverse global democratic decline. But this new role would enable systematic documentation, trend spotting and the sustained international attention democracy defenders desperately need. The rapporteur could investigate not just obvious authoritarian crackdowns but early signs of subtler democratic erosion, while highlighting innovations and good practices that others could adapt.
The debate over a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy offers a test of whether international institutions can adapt to contemporary challenges or will remain trapped in outdated approaches while democracy crumbles. Creating this mandate would communicate that the international community takes democratic governance seriously enough to monitor it systematically – a signal that matters to democracy activists who need international support and serves as a warning to authoritarian leaders who thrive when nobody is watching.
With hundreds of civil society groups leading this charge from the frontlines of democratic struggle, the question isn’t whether this oversight is needed, but whether the UN will act before it’s too late.
Jun 27 2025 (IPS) – CIVICUS discusses autonomous weapons systems and the campaign for regulation with Nicole van Rooijen, Executive Director of Stop Killer Robots, a global civil society coalition of over 270 organisations that campaigns for a new international treaty on autonomous weapons systems.
Nicole van Rooijen
In May, United Nations (UN) member states convened in New York for the first time to confront the challenge of regulating autonomous weapons systems, which can select and engage targets without human intervention. These ‘killer robots’ pose unprecedented ethical, humanitarian and legal risks, and civil society warns they could trigger a global arms race while undermining international law. With weapons that have some autonomy already deployed in conflicts from Gaza to Ukraine, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has set a 2026 deadline for a legally binding treaty.
What are autonomous weapons systems and why do they pose unprecedented challenges?
Autonomous weapons systems, or ‘killer robots’, are weapons that, once activated by a human, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. These systems make independent decisions – without the intervention of a human operator – about when, how, where and against whom to use force, processing sensor data or following pre-programmed ‘target profiles’. Rather than using the term ‘lethal autonomous weapons systems’, our campaign refers to ‘autonomous weapons systems’ to emphasise that any such system, lethal or not, can inflict serious harm.
The implications are staggering. These weapons could operate across all domains – air, land, sea and space – during armed conflicts and law enforcement or border control operations. They raise numerous ethical, humanitarian, legal and security concerns.
The most troubling variant involves anti-personnel systems triggered by human presence or individuals or groups who meet pre-programmed target profiles. By reducing people to data points for algorithmic targeting, these weapons are dehumanising. They strip away our inherent rights and dignity, dramatically increasing the risk of unjust harm or death. No machine, computer or algorithm can recognise a human as a human being, nor respect humans as inherent bearers of rights and dignity. Autonomous weapons cannot comprehend what it means to be in a state of war, much less what it means to have – or to end – a human life. Enabling machines to make life and death decisions is morally unjustifiable.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted it is ‘difficult to envisage’ scenarios where autonomous weapons wouldn’t pose significant risks of violating international humanitarian law, given the inevitable presence of civilians and non-combatants in conflict zones.
Currently, no international law governs these weapons’ development or use. As the technology advances rapidly, this legal vacuum creates a dangerous environment where autonomous weapons could be deployed in ways that violate existing international law while escalating conflicts, enabling unaccountable violence and harming civilians. This is what prompted the UN Secretary-General and the ICRC president to jointly call for urgent negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on autonomous weapons systems by 2026.
How have recent consultations advanced the regulatory agenda?
The informal consultations held in New York in May, mandated by UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 79/62, focused on issues raised in the UN Secretary-General’s 2024 report on autonomous weapons systems. They sought to broaden awareness among the diplomatic community and complement the work around the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), emphasising risks that extend far beyond international humanitarian law.
The UNGA offers a crucial advantage: universal participation. Unlike the CCW process in Geneva, it includes all states. This is particularly important for global south states, many of which are not a party to the CCW.
Over two days, states and civil society explored human rights implications, humanitarian consequences, ethical dilemmas, technological risks and security threats. Rich discussions emerged around regional dynamics and practical scenarios, examining how these weapons might be used in policing, border control and by non-state actors or criminal groups. While time constraints prevented exhaustive exploration of all issues, the breadth of engagement was unprecedented.
The Stop Killer Robots campaign found these consultations energising and strategically valuable. They demonstrated how UN processes in Geneva and New York can reinforce each other: while one forum provides detailed technical groundwork, particularly in developing treaty language, the other fosters inclusive political leadership and momentum. Both forums should work in tandem to maximise global efforts to achieve an international legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems.
What explains the global divide on regulation?
The vast majority of states support a legally binding treaty on autonomous weapons systems, favouring a two-tier approach that combines prohibitions with positive obligations.
However, roughly a dozen states oppose any form of regulation. Among them are some of the world’s most heavily militarised states and the primary developers, producers and likely users of autonomous weapons systems. Their resistance likely stems from the desire to preserve military superiority and protect economic interests, and the belief in inflated claims about these weapons’ supposed benefits promoted by big tech and arms industries. Or perhaps they simply favour force over diplomacy.
Whatever their motivations, this opposition underscores the urgent need for the international community to reinforce a rules-based global order that prioritises dialogue, multilateralism and responsible governance over unchecked technological ambition.
How do geopolitical tensions and corporate influence complicate international regulation efforts?
It is undeniable that geopolitical tensions and corporate influence are challenging the development of regulations for emerging technologies.
A handful of powerful states are prioritising narrow military and economic advantages over collective security, undermining the multilateral cooperation that has traditionally governed arms control. Equally troubling is the expanding influence of the private sector, particularly large tech companies that operate largely outside established accountability frameworks while wielding significant sway over political leaders.
This dual pressure is undermining the international rules-based order precisely when we most need stronger multilateral governance. Without robust regulatory frameworks that can withstand these pressures, development of autonomous weapons risks accelerating unchecked, with profound implications for global security and human rights.
How is civil society shaping this debate and advocating for regulation?
Anticipating the challenges autonomous weapons systems would pose, leading human rights organisations and humanitarian disarmament experts founded the Stop Killer Robots campaign in 2012. Today, our coalition spans over 270 organisations across more than 70 countries, working at national, regional and global levels to build political support for legally binding regulation.
We’ve played a leading role in shaping global discourse by highlighting the wide-ranging risks these technologies pose and producing timely research on weapons systems evolution and shifting state positions.
Our multi-level strategy targets all decision-makers who can influence this agenda, at local, regional and global levels. It’s crucial that political leaders understand how autonomous weapons might be used in warfare and other contexts, enabling them to advocate effectively within their spheres of influence for the treaty we urgently need.
Public pressure is key to our approach. Recent years have seen growing weapons systems autonomy and military applications, particularly in ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, alongside rising use of technologies such as facial recognition in civilian contexts. Public concern about the dehumanising nature of these technologies and the lack of regulation has grown online and offline. We frame these concerns along the whole spectrum of automated harm, with autonomous weapons representing the extreme, and highlight the critical need to close the gap between innovation and regulation.
We also collaborate with experts from arms, military and technology sectors to bring real-world knowledge and credibility to our treaty advocacy. It is crucial to involve those who develop and deploy autonomous weapons to demonstrate the gravity of current circumstances and the urgent need for regulation.
We encourage people to take action by signing our petition, asking their local political representatives to sign our Parliamentary Pledge or just spreading the word about our campaign on social media. This ultimately puts pressure on diplomats and other decision-makers to advance the legal safeguards we desperately need.
