National Commentary by Spain (6 July 2020)
Spain
To start with, States should assess, through legal reviews of new weapons and new methods of warfare, whether the level of human involvement in the new system would violate IHL. In case a legal review identifies a use that might be problematic, doctrine and training are recommended to be drafted and implemented in such a …
Australia believes that an aspect of the current system of international law – embodied in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 contributes to the robust framework for regulating weapons systems, including those with autonomous functionality. Australia’s approach to Article 36 Reviews was described in detail in the …
States have an obligation under international law (article 36 of AP I) to determine whether the employment of a new weapon would be prohibited under international law. In Sweden, this is carried out by the Delegation for International Humanitarian Law Monitoring of Arms Projects. All defence-related authorities must, without delay, report to this delegation any …
The legal weapon review outlined in Article 36 of the Geneva Additional Protocol of 1949 requires that “In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by …
Switzerland would like to recall the obligation of all States to “respect and ensure respect” for IHL (see common Article 1 to the Geneva Conventions) and the prohibition to use means and methods of warfare in contradiction to IHL. Therefore, an implementation of IHL in good faith requires an assessment whether means and methods of …
Canada implements a permanent national legal review of all of its weapons systems. Canada fully complies with Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which requires states to determine whether new weapons, means or methods of warfare may be employed lawfully under international law. In other words, in the study, development, acquisition …
As pointed out in the 2019 report of the GGE, exchange of good practice relating to key activities such as legal weapon reviews could be beneficial. We continue to believe this has merit and believe it not only to be an area worthy of focus, but one that should be extended: as well as a …
In accordance with guiding principle e), the Russian Federation fully complies with its obligations under Article 36 of the AP I. We consider it a norm of customary international law. This Article has no provisions on how exactly legal reviews should be conducted, and does not impose an obligation on States to make their results …
Mi delegación es de la firme convicción que esta revisión legal integral por expertos legales y como parte de un intercambio amplio e inclusivo con expertos operativos y tecnológicos debe 3 realizarse de manera enfocada, y tomando como base los avances logrados ya por el GGE y otros actores claves incluyendo el ICRC, SIPRI, UNIDIR, …
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. …
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 …
2. … Brazil would like to put forward four paths of action to build upon the guiding principles and fulfill the mandate of the GGE. The four paths, and its working methodology, are based on a “bottom-up” approach that benefits from domestic advancements in policies and legislations, networking of experts, multi-stakeholder approach, and international cooperation. …
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 …
[22] It is an obligation of States to ensure that their weapons comply with the rules and principles of international law, including [IHL]. New technologies have to comply with international law as well. Article 36 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 clearly states that when a High Contracting Party studies, develops …
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 …
A rigorous weapons review, in line with Article 36 of [AP I], is essential for determining the legality of any new means or method of warfare. In the area of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine autonomy, the review needs to be critical, wide in scope, multidisciplinary, and detailed with regard to the …
States Parties to 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions have a legal obligation to conduct legal reviews of new weapons. In the ICRC’s view, the requirement to carry out legal reviews also flows from the obligation to ensure respect for IHL. Besides these legal requirements, all States have an interest in assessing the …
In concrete terms, in order to ensure that IHL is fully applied to weapons systems based on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS – in compliance with guiding principle “a”5 and in line with their existing obligations – High Contracting Parties (HCPs) should, for the purposes of operationalizing the eleven guiding principles at national …
Germany reaffirms that Guiding Principle (e) underlines the importance of human responsibility during the phases preceding the deployment of a weapon system. Particularly for highly complex systems with autonomous functions, the development phase is of crucial importance since the configurations determining the behavior of the systems originate in this phase. Guiding Principle (e) reflects Article …
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 …
