It seems widely accepted that, like every other means of warfare, the use of LAWS is subject to the Law of Armed Conflict. Another observation that seems to be widely supported, regards the importance of conducting legal reviews of weapons, including LAWS. Israel would like to take this opportunity and join others in sharing a …
A third assumption is that the use of future LAWS, as any other means of warfare, must comply with the applicable rules of IHL. In fact, prudent employment of LAWS may even promote compliance with IHL. In this context, it seems that states should, when considering a lethal autonomous weapon system, subject the system in …
During the GGE meeting of 11-15 April 2016, Israel presented its own domestic process for legal review of new weapons. Notwithstanding that Israel is not party to [AP I] and as such is not bound by Article 36 of that Protocol, Israel is of the view that applying legal reviews to new weapons is a …
In an effort to contribute to the [Article 5] discussions, Israel has actively participated in the meetings, contributed with participation of relevant experts and also took the opportunity to elaborate on its weapons review procedure… Lastly, another issue that seems to necessitate further discussions is national weapon reviews. This issue reflects an important avenue of …
We wanted to join those calling for more discussions regarding national weapons reviews. Notwithstanding that Israel is not a party to [AP I], and as such is not bound by Article 36 of that Protocol, Israel is of the view that conducting legal reviews to new weapons is an effective instrument for a state to …
There is a reason why definitions of weapons are based on design in particular since they delineate more clearly the types of weapons under consideration and since they better reflect the element of intended circumstances of use which is a crucial element in defining and reviewing weapons. Statement by Israel (GGE LAWS, 4 September 2025)
Article 36 itself states that, in the development of a new weapon, a High Contracting Party is under the obligation to determine whether its employment will be prohibited by [Additional] Protocol [I] or by any other applicable rule of international law, meaning the Article does not address legal obligations that instruct how to develop weapons …
