Recent discussions have in particular looked at the application of existing international humanitarian law (IHL) to the potential development of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems. As a party to Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Australia fully supports and has a policy to undertake a review of any proposed new weapon, …
To verify compliance with the two rules listed above [ie, prohibition of indiscriminate weapons and weapons that cause unnecessary suffering], a State intent on fielding a new weapon must conduct a thorough legal review. This requirement for a legal review, which appears in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, ensures that the weapon is not …
It is Australia’s view that how a LAWS might be employed is an essential part of conducting an article 36 review for compliance with IHL. This also involves understanding how militaries undertake operations and the targeting process. A few States present have publically disclosed this process in general terms, including Australia. It is for this …
Además, reconocemos la aplicabilidad, en esta materia, de los limites y obligaciones preventivas previstas en el derecho internacional humanitario. Entre otros, la obligación de revisión prevista en el artículo 36 del Protcolo Adicional I a los Convenios de Ginebra, obliga a los Estados a asegurar que las armas que se desarrollen o adquieran cumplan con …
Dans le domaine juridique, nous relevons également l’importance attachée à la thématique de l’examen juridique des méthodes et moyens de guerre lors de nos discussions. Il s’agit là certainement d’un sujet central à préciser plus avant, tout comme la thématique de la responsabilité et la manière de la garantir en tout temps. Final Statement by …
Le fait de posséder une base légale solide ne devrait pas pour autant nous amener à faire preuve de complaisance. Bien au contraire, certains aspects légaux doivent être réaffirmés et soulignés. Une question devra notamment être abordée : celle de savoir si la réalisation des examens juridiques des nouveaux armements, moyens et méthodes de guerre …
Could it be possible to create more transparency about national policies with regard to new weapons systems as well as transparency about the mechanisms to text and validate these weapons systems before deployment? The Article 36-reviews may play an important role. Statement Wrap-up Session by Michael Biontino (16 May 2014)
Many delegations this week stressed the importance of legal reviews of autonomous weapons. The ICRC welcomes the wide recognition of the need to carry out thorough legal reviews of the new technologies of warfare they are developing or acquiring, including weapons that have autonomy in their critical functions. Such legal review must determine whether weapons …
As Australia noted in its opening statement, the last four days have reinforced the need to thoroughly review all new weapons and weapon system technology against the requirements of international humanitarian law or any rule of international law applicable to the reviewing party. This is even more the case where the technology is evolving, and …
We are pleased that article 36 reviews of weapons, means and methods of warfare, have been a focus of discussion here as well. Such reviews will need to be based on an understanding of the requirement to ensure meaningful human control over such weapons systems. So to undertake such reviews there will need to be …
L’idée qui a eu le maximum d’adhésion des délégations a été celle relative à la nécessité d’entreprendre le réexamen de la légalité sur l’étude, le développement et l’acquisition de nouvelles armes, tel que le prévoient l’article 36 du premier protocole additionnel et les règles du droit coutumier qui s’y rapportent. Il a été proposé que …
