Weapons reviews A normative and operational framework Written Contribution on Possible Consensus Recommendations: Submitted by the European Union (June 2021)
5. … Estonia welcomes the addition of a section dedicated to weapons reviews in the draft elements of possible consensus recommendations. We agree, inter alia, that weapons reviews should be conducted when a weapon is modified or used differently from its original intended use. Estonia supports listing elements of practice that should be applied in …
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 …
In order to ensure that the military use of emerging technologies in the area of LAWS is in compliance with international legal obligations, particularly [IHL], we must carefully study the use in the entire life cycle of weapons systems. In particular, the hardware and software within the design, development, and testing stages, should be rigorously …
My delegation believes that conducting reviews as specified in article 36 of [AP I] provides an important role in weapons development and likewise that through such reviews, it is more likely to establish whether new technologies in the area of LAWS should be prohibited or not. Statement by Malta on agenda item 5 (3 August …
Going forward, the GGE needs to continue to examine and clarify the type of normative or regulatory framework needed to effectively address issues related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. The GGE should also further explore how weapons reviews can be enhanced and universalized. Weapons reviews are an essential framework to identify risks …
We welcome the inclusion of this section on weapons reviews. New Zealand believes weapons reviews, including article 36 reviews, will continue to play an important role in weapons development. Our overarching comment is that we think consideration should be given to making these reviews more robust, as part of strengthening the framework around AWS. We …
Having agreed upon these general premises, there is now enough basis to negotiate a legally-binding Protocol under the Convention that will contain prohibitions or regulations in the area of LAWS and other advanced weapon systems. The GGE should now be given the mandate to discuss the following specific elements of such an instrument, to wit: …
Section 5 — Weapon reviews 1. In para 1 we see the need to invoke article 36 of [API]. The new para would read as follows: “In accordance with the obligations of States under international law, in relation to Art. 36 of [API], in the study, development, acquisition, or adoption of a new weapon, means …
Weapon systems including autonomous features or functions and the intended military task to be resolved require contextual review. To determine compliance/non-compliance with IHL of LAWS for the given task in certain circumstances, three interlinked key elements should be studied in all phases of preparation and planning: 1) Technological capability of the system; i.e., the level …
6. The Group will also consider facilitating a voluntary exchange of national practices and experiences, where they exist, in the area of legal reviews of new weapons, according to Article 36 of [API]. Republic of Poland contribution to possible consensus recommendations in relation to the clarification, consideration and development of aspects of the normative and …
States should assess, through legal reviews, whether human involvement in the new system would violate IHL principles. In case a legal review identifies a use that might be problematic, doctrine and training should be drafted and implemented in such a way that they allow the weapon to be used properly and in compliance with IHL. …
4. Weapons Reviews An implementation of IHL in good faith requires an assessment whether means and methods of warfare can be used in conformity with IHL prior to their employment in international as well as non-international armed conflicts. Conducting legal reviews, as specified in article 36 of [API], constitutes an important element in preventing or …
This paper is submitted under the responsibility of the Chair. The following are elements for discussion for possible inclusion in the report of the GGE, which will be prepared at a later stage. This paper does not prejudge the outcome of the 2021 GGE session, or the course of the discussion to follow. […] (4) …
Which decisions, activities, and processes across the life-cycle of a weapons system would collectivelycontribute towards and enable appropriate human-machine interaction/human control/human judgment?What would be the interaction between these various decisions, activities, and processes and how would theyvary based on the operational context and the characteristics and capabilities of the weapons system? To start with, States …
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)
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 …
15. The Russian Federation fully complies with its obligations under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 (AP I) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Our country has a nationwide system which makes it possible, on the basis of the existing legal and regulatory framework, to ensure appropriate monitoring of compliance with the requirements of Article …
Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, State of Palestine, Uruguay
9. … Our delegations are of the view that stronger focus should be given to the following principles, which should be the elements of a normative framework on LAWS: (j) … States should be transparent regarding all aspects of the development of their weapons systems, as well as their processes for reviewing new weapons. States …
