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)
We feel that our discussions should actually reflect the issue of trust: trust between a human and the machine in respect to the authorisation of force. Only trusted systems can be authorized to execute tasks defined by humans. To ascertain this trust, we emphasize the need for states to conduct rigorous national legal weapons reviews, …
8. Article 36 of 1977 Additional Protocol I (AP I) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is a supplementary tool to regulate LAWS in the context of future military uses. Russia adheres to its relevant obligations and deems it unnecessary to elaborate a universal mandatory mechanism for “legal reviews“, especially just for LAWS. We believe it …
As one of the few countries that undertakes Article 36 reviews for new weapons, munitions, methods and means of warfare, New Zealand encourages all States parties to [AP I] to fulfil their existing legal obligations for weapons reviews. New Zealand also supports any initiatives which seek to share best practices for weapons reviews, including a …
DND/CAF’s Legal Weapons Review Process Canada conducts legal reviews of new weapons, means, and methods of warfare that are being contemplated for study, development, acquisition, or adoption by the Department of Defenceand the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure their compliance with international law. As part of this weapons review, several factors are considered: A) Whether …
We recall that national legal weapons reviews must be conducted, pursuant to Article 36 of [AP I], in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, in order to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by applicable international law. We encourage all …
All States must ensure that emerging technologies including Artificial Intelligence that could be used in [LAWS] are developed and used in compliance with international law, in particular [IHL]. National legal weapons reviews in compliance with IHL remain a relevant tool in this context. Humans need to remain in control of the development, deployment and use …
Concerning confidence building measures, it is appropriate to consider what kind of mechanism is suitable in order to secure transparency. Introducing an implementation mechanism of weapons review into the annual report of the CCW may work as one of such mechanisms. Possible outcome of 2019 GGE and future actions of international community on LAWS: Submitted …
Brazil acknowledges the importance of weapons reviews in order to support compliance with IHL in the use of novel weapons systems, both under Article 36 of Protocol II [sic!] to the Geneva Conventions and as a corollary of customary international law. Statement by Brazil under agenda item 5(a): an exploration of the potential challenges (26 …
As we have already outlined, the use of algorithms with the ability of learning in weapons raises concerns which revolve around to their predictability and reliability on the battlefield. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to verify that any weapon with a high degree of autonomy will be tested in all foreseeable scenarios of use …
The conduct of legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of war under article 36 of [AP I] is important for ensuring that the development, deployment and use of new weapons systems and new means and methods of warfare comply with international law. As with all weapons, assessing the lawfulness of an [AWS] will …
16. An important aspect of the review process is an Article 36 Review. In accordance with Australia’s obligation as a party to Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention, an Article 36 Review must be undertaken before a new weapon system can be introduced into service. To achieve this, all weapons, means or methods of warfare …
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): …
Among the outcomes from this Group, New Zealand would like to see clear recognition of the importance of strengthening the operation of Art 36 reviews. We welcome the efforts being made by the ICRC to progress work on sharing best practice methods for conducting reviews and developing states’ understanding of how Art 36 reviews apply …
1. At the 2018 session of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), Argentina presented working paper CCW/GGE.1/2018/WP.2 on strengthening the legal weapons review mechanisms established in accordance with Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions relative to the …
6. In previous discussions, a number of States pointed to the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons, in accordance with international law and more particularly with article 36 of [API]. In our view, this remains a useful and important avenue to ensure that any weapons system is developed in compliance with international law …
4. In addition, national reviews on the research, development and use of new weapons have, to a certain extent, positive significance on preventing the misuse of relevant technologies and on reducing harm to civilians. However, as national policies and practices in this regard differ quite significantly, it is difficult to have a uniform standard for …
The ICRC has welcomed the attention that this discussion has brought to improving and developing legal review processes. Effective legal reviews are critical to ensuring that a State’s armed forces comply with IHL in light of rapid technological developments. Greater transparency in how States interpret and apply their obligation to carry out legal reviews of …
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 …
