9. At the moment Estonia does not possess such mechanism of review. If needed, such analysis will be done on a case-by-case basis to maximize compliance with IHL. Responses to Document CCW/GGE/X/WG.1/WP.2, Entitled IHL and ERW, Dated 8 March 2005: Response from Estonia (7 November 2005) CCW/GGE/XII/WG.1/WP.5
… A number of states have highlighted the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons systems as an implementation mechanism of international humanitarian law. Estonia would support a further discussion on best practices of weapons reviews, especially as concerns technologically complex weapon systems. Estonia believes that the Group of Governmental Experts under the auspices …
5. … Estonia welcomes the addition of a section dedicated to weapons reviews in the draft elements of possible consensus recommendations. We agree, inter alia, that weapons reviews should be conducted when a weapon is modified or used differently from its original intended use. Estonia supports listing elements of practice that should be applied in …
Weapons reviews are a valuable tool to ensure the compliance of a specific LAWS with international law. We find that in addition to conducting a weapons review when a new weapons system is taken into use, a weapons review should also be conducted when a weapon or weapons system is modified or used differently from …
Australia, Canada, Estonia, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, United States
Article 1. Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, or if it is otherwise incapable of being used in …
