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 …
… Denmark considers weapons review as an essential tool in ensuring that all weapons systems are in compliance with IHL. As many have already mentioned, with Guiding Principle (e) this group has already highlighted the importance of weapons reviews. Like our Dutch colleague, we would also invite states to share information regarding weapons reviews, as …
It’s been encouraging on this topic to see the attention given during discussions of [AWS] to the conduct of legal reviews. Effective legal reviews are a clear procedural obligation for states party to [AP I], and for all states are critical to ensuring that their armed forces comply with the international humanitarian rules in the …
… to turn to your first questions, and these are, of course, kind of preliminary remarks, I would say that legal reviews by themselves are not the only tool to ensure compliance with IHL, and I agree with my colleague from Ecuador, who made the same point that there are so many implementing measures for …
It is the United Kingdom’s strong belief that the requirement for an anticipatory ban or restrictions on [LAWS] is mitigated by the legal obligation on States to determine whether the employment of such a weapon system would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by international law. It is for this reason, the UK supported …
… At the outset, I’d like to say that answers to some of the questions have already been included in, or covered by, the statement made by the delegation of Algeria earlier this morning. But as part of our interactive debate, I would like to highlight some elements related to the questions that you are …
As outlined by the address before in this discussion, the conduct of legal reviews is an existing obligation under Article 36 of [AP I], reaffirmed in our context for Guiding Principle (e). It is the task of our expert group to give additional guidance on how it applies in the case of [AWS] taking into …
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 …
Legal review is a provision in AP I of Geneva Conventions. All High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions should strictly fulfil the obligations by carrying out legal reviews on AWS and other new weapons. Such reviews can help to prevent misuse of technology and lowering civilian casualties. China, like many other countries, have in …
We wish to begin by saying that we agree with you and with other delegations that have spoken here this morning. We believe that there is considerable convergence on this issue. It is true that current legal review obligations under IHL apply generally speaking to all types of armaments, including those using emerging technologies such …
Reviews of new weapons systems in the context of rapid pace of technological advancement requires scientific and technical capacities that in connection with [AWS] will clearly show the gap in the positions of states when they analyse new technologies and their compliance with international law. Taking into account the existence of these gaps, my delegation …
The UK would strongly support further work in the GGE that focussed on sharing and collating good practice relating to the various activities throughout the life cycle of a weapon system which would impact upon compliance with IHL. This includes but is not limited to weapon reviews, human-machine interaction and risk mitigation. Statement by the …
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 …
So in answer to the question, “Can legal reviews by themselves ensure compliance with IHL?”, we don’t see it in of itself, sufficient to ensure compliance. We see legal reviews as an important check and balance within a broader system of control as reflective of state’s obligations under [Common] Article 1, in terms of respecting …
Today we’re discussing a very important question in our view, a question that is related to questions of compliance with the provisions of IHL during the entire life-cycle of such weapon systems that we consider to be lethal autonomous weapons systems. We believe that at all stages of the life-cycle of these weapon systems what …
Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, State of Palestine, Uruguay
Article 5: Review of Weapons Sec. 1: Each High Contracting Party shall ensure that weapon systems under development or modification which changes the effects or use of existing weapon systems, including as a result of self-learning processes, must be reviewed to ensure compliance with international law. Sec. 2: Each High Contracting Party shall adhere to …
… I would like to focus on the first part and the following three questions. The first question is key and the most important word there is the word insure. Because I don’t think that legal reviews by themselves cannot ensure compliance with IHL. It can be indeed a very important tool to do that. …
We wanted to join those calling for more discussions regarding national weapons reviews. Notwithstanding that Israel is not a party to [AP I], and as such is not bound by Article 36 of that Protocol, Israel is of the view that conducting legal reviews to new weapons is an effective instrument for a state to …
This is on the questions we had before lunch. We believe that legal reviews can assist in insurance compliance with IHL but it’s one of several tools in the tool-kit, including training and {operational} planning, etc. And it’s important that legal reviews are complete and cover all aspects: that the procedures include every technological aspect, …
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 …
