The regulation of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) has emerged as a salient and perplexing issue in global governance, especially in the UN GGE on LAWS. This article argues that contentions over defining and regulating LAWS extend beyond country positions. As LAWS are mobilised as a complex governance object, these disputes also stem from struggles over epistemic capital, where experts provide different interpretations of such systems' component parts and functional properties. The article analyzes three epistemic domains-legal, technical, and military-in the academic debate over LAWS as proxies for the underlying codified capital that can be mobilized as a resource for epistemic power in the regulatory exercise. Each of the three domains offers a distinct rendering of LAWS, differing in emphasis, characterization, and assessment of regulatory prospects. The article highlights how the delineation of governance objects considered complex is a process which interpellates and reinforces epistemic authorities, thus generating political effects.
