This study examines whether existing International Humanitarian Law (IHL) adequately regulates Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) and whether new international frameworks are required. AWS are increasingly deployed in modern warfare, yet current IHL frameworks were not designed to govern autonomous decision-making, creating challenges for accountability, compliance, and oversight. Using a mixed methodological approach—combining doctrinal legal analysis, comparative case studies of AWS-related violations from 2010 to 2024, and expert interviews (N = 30) with legal scholars, military personnel, and AI ethicists—the study evaluates regulatory gaps, enforcement challenges, and ethical implications in autonomous warfare. Empirical data on AWS deployment trends, legal accountability, and reported violations were analyzed to assess the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms. The results reveal persistent inconsistencies across regulations, limited clarity on accountability, and insufficient ethical safeguards, while observed AWS-related incidents indicate weak enforcement and minimal legal consequences. These findings underscore the urgent need for a binding international treaty, enhanced human oversight, and clear allocation of liability among operators, commanders, and developers. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for improving data transparency, clarifying developer responsibility, and amending existing treaties to ensure AWS remain compliant with humanitarian principles. It further highlights the need for continuous monitoring of autonomous weapons and the potential for empirical assessment of decision-making models to strengthen accountability in autonomous combat.