8. … The Netherlands has a review mechanism based on the requirements of Article 36 of AP1 which reviews both methods and means of warfare to ensure their compatibility with international law, including IHL. The mechanism was set up by Ministerial Decree of the Minister of Defense and consists of a reviewing committee supported by …
I. Summary 1. Limitations on the choice of methods and means of warfare can already be found in the oldest sources of international humanitarian law and were repeated and re-established in article 35 of the First Additional protocol (AP1). The preamble of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons refers to this article 35 as a …
16. For most states, weapon reviews are compulsory based on Article 36 of [API], which obliges States Parties involved in the development or acquisition of new means and methods of warfare to determine whether they are permitted under international law. The Netherlands is of the opinion that (1) the implementation of Article 36 procedures should …
The Netherlands believes that, in assessing whether autonomous weapon systems are under meaningful human control, there is an important role for the Article 36 procedure of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Article 36 obliges States Parties to determine whether new means and methods of warfare are permitted under international law. We underlined …
Please allow me, to summarize explain in summary the Dutch position: […] 9. Autonomous weapon systems need to remain under meaningful human control. Therefore it is important that when procuring autonomous weapons, the government should ensure that (1). the concept of morally responsible engineering is applied during the design stage, (2) the autonomous weapons systems …
… we also see value to further discuss the idea of a peer review process on Article 36. Statement by the Netherlands (April 2015)
On the question of legality of weapon systems we are guided by international law and in particular by International Humanitarian Law. All weapon systems (and their eventual use in armed conflicts) should meet the rules and regulations of international law. Part of that is Art. 36 of the 1st Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. My …
Article 36 of [API] contains the obligation to review whether the development or acquisition of new means and methods of warfare are permitted under international law. The Netherlands would like to underline that: (1) Efforts to ensure full and universal implementation of Article 36 procedures should be increased. (2) The concept of meaningful human control …
On weapon reviews procedures. To further IHL compliance, the Netherlands is of the opinion that (1) the implementation of Article 36 procedures should be promoted (2) the concept of meaningful human control should play an important role within the Article 36 review and that (3) greater transparency concerning the outcomes of these procedures and more …
… meaningful human control should consider, inter alia, the following elements: (3) The execution of legal weapon reviews that pay sufficient attention to the level of autonomy of the weapon system. Statement by the Netherlands under agenda item 5(b): further consideration of the human element (26 March 2019)
The unanimous conclusion by the High Contracting Parties that all weapon systems, including LAWS, and their deployment in armed conflict, must comply with the requirements set by international law, in particular [IHL]. In this light, we encourage all states to fulfil their obligations under article 36 of [AP I] on legal reviews. Statement by the …
Given the fact that most [AWS] involve a high level of complexity, the Netherlands believes that the following elements are of importance: … The execution of legal weapon reviews that pay sufficient attention to the autonomy aspect of the [AWS]. If needed, boundaries could be placed on the deployment of the system. Statement by the …
The Netherlands believes that such a document [an interpretative guide or codes of conduct] should focus, amongst others, on meaningful human control in relation to the deployment of autonomous weapons, as well as on how to properly consider meaningful human control in the Article 36 Review Procedure. Statement by the Netherlands under agenda item 5(e): …
Turning to the issue of the development and testing of weapons, the Netherlands wishes to emphasize once again the importance of legal weapon reviews. As a State Party to [API], the Netherlands has a standing legal review process for all new weapons, means and methods of warfare as well as for all modifications to existing …
The Netherlands considers weapons reviews — mandatory for us under international law — crucial for all weapon systems, including weapon systems with some degree of autonomy. A better understanding of how weapon reviews work and sharing experiences and best practices will contribute to improve the implementation of weapon reviews for existing systems as well as …
The Netherlands is a State Party to Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (AP I) and has a standing legal review process for all new weapons, means and methods of warfare as well as for all modifications to existing weapons, means and methods of warfare already in use by the Netherlands armed forces. These …
Where and how to draw the line to determine what [AWS] would be lawful or not? … the article 36 review process is critical in this process of determining whether a weapon system is capable of being used in compliance with IHL. As the Netherlands has pointed out throughout this GGE, having established that a …
D. Weapon reviews Possible recommendations in relation to the clarification, consideration and development of aspects of the normative and operational framework: submitted by the Netherlands (June 2021)
As we and many other states have mentioned, the ability to exercise human control and judgments during the development and use of [AWS] is key to ensure compliance with obligations under international law, in particular [IHL]. Conducting a legal review of [AWS] in line with Guiding Principle (e) is one of the ways in which …
… to turn to your first questions, and these are, of course, kind of preliminary remarks, I would say that legal reviews by themselves are not the only tool to ensure compliance with IHL, and I agree with my colleague from Ecuador, who made the same point that there are so many implementing measures for …
