Based on my quick reading, the article fails to establish that autonomous drones are actually a clearly defined category about which treaties could plausibly be enforced. The WMD category is not just about indiscriminate destruction, it's also crucially about being able to cleanly distinguish WMDs from non-WMDs. Biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons are, with only a few exceptions, fairly precise categories. (Part of the criticism of bunker-buster nuclear bombs is that they risked blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.)
How often does a remote operator need to check in with a drone for it to no longer be "fully autonomous"? How many such drones could the operator be monitoring at once? How many drones constitute a swarm?
A sovereign power can plausibly regulate blurry categories by just picking arbitrary but clearly defined cut-offs, e.g., the difference between a moped and a motorcycle is defined as an engine with a certain number of cc's. But this is a lot harder when you need to get dozens of different countries to all agree on a rule. International law is more dependent than domestic law on appealing to clear moral boundaries, since there is no higher earthly power to appeal to.
How often does a remote operator need to check in with a drone for it to no longer be "fully autonomous"? How many such drones could the operator be monitoring at once? How many drones constitute a swarm?
A sovereign power can plausibly regulate blurry categories by just picking arbitrary but clearly defined cut-offs, e.g., the difference between a moped and a motorcycle is defined as an engine with a certain number of cc's. But this is a lot harder when you need to get dozens of different countries to all agree on a rule. International law is more dependent than domestic law on appealing to clear moral boundaries, since there is no higher earthly power to appeal to.