States should undertake a legal review of weapons, including those that employ a cyber capability. Such a review should entail an analysis, for example, of whether a particular capability would be inherently indiscriminate, i.e., that it could not be used consistent with the principles of distinction and proportionality. The U.S. Government undertakes at least two …
29. The United States does have a mechanism to review the legality of new weapons. Pursuant to DOD Directives and Military Department regulations, a legal review is required for every new or modified weapon or weapons system. In 1974, the first DOD Directive on this subject was issued. In 1991, a new directive was incorporated into …
3. The United States of America views the review of the legality of weapons as a best practice for implementing customary and treaty law relating to weapons and their use in armed conflict. The United States of America is not a party to [AP I] and therefore is not bound by that instrument, but we note …
Finally, we have consistently heard in the CCW interest expressed on the weapons review process and about the requirement to conduct a legal review of all new weapon systems, including LAWS. We believe that this is an area on which we should focus as an interim step as we continue our consideration of LAWS in …
6.2 DoD Policy of Reviewing the Legality of Weapons As provided in DoD issuances, DoD policy for many years has required the legal review of the intended acquisition or procurement of weapons or weapon systems; this review includes ensuring that such acquisition or procurement is consistent with the law of war.7 These DoD policy requirements have …
The United States places great importance on the weapon review process in the development and acquisition of new weapon systems. This is a critical measure in ensuring that weapon systems can dependably be used in a manner that is consistent with IHL Statement by the United States under agenda item 5: general debate (9 April …
Although we’ve heard the message from some States that weapons reviews are not sufficient, we think further consideration by this group of weapons reviews, without prejudice to other elements of the groups’ work, would be worthwhile. The United States remains interested in sharing practice on weapons reviews with a view towards more States understanding their …
32. We also recommend a proactive approach in addressing issues in human-machine interaction. States seeking to develop new uses for autonomy in their weapons should be affirmatively seeking to identify and address these issues in their respective processes for managing the life cycle of such weapons. For example, DoD Directive 3000.09 requires senior officials to review …
Additionally, Guiding Principle (e) reaffirms the importance of a robust practice of conducting reviews of the legality of weapons. Such reviews are a good practice to facilitate the implemen-tation of international law applicable to weapons and their use in armed conflict, and can also help ensure that their humanitarian and security benefits are realized, and …
This guiding principle reaffirms the principle in Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The United States is not a party to the Additional Protocol I and does not regard Article 36 as reflecting customary law, but engages in robust practice of conducting reviews of the legality of weapons. …
12. The legal review of weapons prior to their use enables the State developing or acquiring the weapons to consider relevant IHL issues, including precautions to reduce the risk of civilian casualties. The legal review of the weapon also affords an opportunity to ensure that designers and developers of the weapon system and others tasked with …
Ensuring the Legality of Weapons and Weapon Systems 2-200. Under longstanding DOD policies, there are requirements to review the legality of the acquisition or procurement of weapons. Although the United States is not a party to Additional Protocol I, many allies and potential multinational partners of the United States are required to determine the legality of …
Weapons Reviews Relevant Guiding Principles: Relevant Consensus Conclusions of the GGE: Potential Areas for Further GGE Consensus Recommendations or Work: Building on Chile’s Proposed Four Elements of Further Work for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS): Submitted …
VIII. Good Practices Related to Human-Machine Interaction […] 26. At various stages of the life-cycle of a weapon, the following good practices related to human-machine interaction can strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law, strengthen accountability, and mitigate risks in the use of weapons systems based on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS: (a) Conducting legal …
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 …
We appreciate the inclusion of legal reviews as a topic on your indicative timetable. The GGE’s mandate, of course, is to consider proposals and to elaborate by consensus possible measures. We believe that legal reviews are a particularly important measure in the context of [AWS] to ensure compliance with [IHL]. Reflecting on the opening statements …
D. U.S. Proposals on Weapons Reviews Guidelines and good practices for militaries to consider using in conducting legal reviews of weapons systems based on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS 11. Legal advisers should be consulted regularly in the development or acquisition process as decisions that could pose legal issues are being made so that …
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 …
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 …
This is, like our Swedish colleague, in response to your questions. Regarding the first question, my delegation agrees with what seems to be the consensus that legal reviews do not ensure compliance but are a very important measure. Regarding the second question, we do see a risk of divergent outcomes in legal reviews and the …
