Before the deployment of any new weapon system, including one that is autonomous, there is an obligation to conduct a review of the means and methods of warfare in accordance with Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Statement by Sweden in the session on legal aspects (May 2014)
We would also like to appreciate your deft handling of this body and your introduction under this topic, which we found very useful. Some very pertinent questions were raised by you. … [W]e can go with you, when you characterise our discussions under this topic, that there is significant convergence in terms of value of …
My delegation welcomes a discussion on legal reviews of autonomous weapons systems. We see this topic as particularly ripe for further elaboration in the GGE, as – to our mind – effective practices in relation to weapons reviews have the potential to address many of the concerns raised by delegations in this forum. The …
We are pleased to note that almost all proposals and working papers on the table stressed the importance of legal reviews of weapons. While not the sole solution for the challenges associated with increasing autonomy and weapon systems, legal reviews are a crucial instrument and thus can be part of the solutions, as you outlined …
We must also articulate the characteristics of these systems which may have positive or negative implications for compliance with IHL, and their impact upon activities throughout the life cycle of a weapon system, such as those elements that you mentioned in your introduction Mr Chair such as human control and legal weapon reviews. Statement by …
[A] s other delegations here today, Sweden like to underline the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of warfare. And we find working papers that engage with the obligation of Article 36 in relation to LAWS useful in the work to ensure compliance with [IHL]. Sweden fully shares the views …
4. It is also a requirement throughout research, development, acquisition and use of [AWS] to constantly review and reassess any possible changes and modifications in the system’s functioning with regard to fulfilment of the conditions listed above. This should include technical aspects such as ‘machine learning’ and any datasets upon which system functions are based. …
… our delegation strongly supports the inclusion of the topic on the legal weapon reviews with regard to [AWS]. Being one of the key areas of convergence of growing convergence, a comprehensive and in-depth discussion on the subject matter is valuable and beneficial for the work of the group. The incorporation of legal reviews in …
If an AWS’ functioning is opaque, then humans responsible for the application of IHL rules — both persons entrusted with the legal review of an AWS and persons responsible for compliance with IHL during its use — could not reasonably determine its lawfulness under IHL … In addition, new legally binding rules would strengthen existing …
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 …
23. … National regulations and responses alone such as national weapons reviews are useful but not sufficient. The GGE is not the platform to confer legitimacy on national measures, which cannot be verified. Proposal for an international legal instrument on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS): submitted by Pakistan (8 March 2023) CCW/GGE.1/2023/WP.3/Rev.1
There is much common ground among all delegations and in the respective proposals regarding the importance of weapons review at the national level. This, after all, is already an existing legal obligation. There is also growing recognition that exchange of information and good practices is essential in that regard. The proposal for Principles and Good …
Norway too is a long-standing party to the Additional Protocol II [sic!] and Article 36 of course. Legal reviews are essential to ensuring compliance with international law as has been pointed out by so many and we very much support fleshing out what considerations the legal review should comprise in this specific case of LAWS. …
3. … Adherence to the basic principles of IHL: distinction, proportionality, humanitarian considerations and military necessity should be mandatory, as well as legal review in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of new weapon types. … Concept of Activities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the Development and Use of Weapons Systems (7 …
The 2019 [GGE] adopted 11 guidelines reflect that “in accordance with states’ obligations under international law, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or methods of warfare, determination must be made whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by international law”. This underlines the importance of …
Well, my delegation would just like to express how encouraged we are with the tone of the discussions so far. And we take particular interest, and we’d like to echo some of the points that were raised by the distinguished delegation of Pakistan and Argentina, as well as the very important points raised by the …
Legal reviews of weapons systems using emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, which are carried out with reregard to their research, development, acquisition, employment, as well as methods and means of warfare, is useful in determining whether they are prohibited by international law applicable to the country concerned. On the other hand, the specific …
Rather than trying to prevent you asked him some more challenging questions, actually I want to remind us of the homework you presented this week last night. And I want to perhaps now take the opportunity to answer or provide a UK response to one of the questions that you posed us last night, and …
… we believe that states should commit themselves to adopt and implement national measures with a view of accompanying the development and employment of weapon systems that have autonomy, in order to guarantee full compliance with IHL. Such measures should cover the entire life-cycle of these weapon systems. More specifically, this means that carrying out …
Our delegation would like to submit that India is not a party to [AP I]. There is no consonance between the list of countries who are party to [AP I] and the High Contracting Parties of the CCW. However, our delegation also submits that we may support legal reviews in [LAWS], as decided by national …
