We have heard conflicting views as to whether LAWS could be in conformity with IHL. My delegation trusts that all States would like to operate within the provisions of International Humanitarian Law and would take steps to respect Article 36 of the Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, relating to the Protection …
It seems widely accepted that, like every other means of warfare, the use of LAWS is subject to the Law of Armed Conflict. Another observation that seems to be widely supported, regards the importance of conducting legal reviews of weapons, including LAWS. Israel would like to take this opportunity and join others in sharing a …
May I reaffirm at the outset that Australia takes seriously our responsibilities under the existing legal framework for reviewing new weapons under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. We fully support and adhere to the obligation to undertake a review of any proposed new weapon, means or …
Fourthly, without LAWS being a reality yet and without even a definition of LAWS transparency and confidence building measures especially with regard to the introduction of new weapons systems are of crucial importance. We should therefor make full use of the process of Legal Weapons Review in accordance to Art 36 AP I in sharing …
… establishing evidence that the operator or the manufacturers knew or should have known the possibility of the crime committed by a complicated artificial intelligence system fed into the weapon will be a difficult task. Therefore, we recommend this aspect also be given due attention when discussing Article 36 implementation, to ensure a clear accountability …
1 Selon cet article, « dans l’étude, la mise au point l’acquisition ou l’adoption d’une nouvelle arme, de nouveaux moyens ou d’une nouvelle méthode de guerre, une Haute partie contractante a l’obligation de déterminer si l’emploi en serait interdit dans certaines circonstances ou en toutes circonstances, par les dispositions du Protocole ou toute autre règle …
Please allow me, to summarize explain in summary the Dutch position: […] 9. Autonomous weapon systems need to remain under meaningful human control. Therefore it is important that when procuring autonomous weapons, the government should ensure that (1). the concept of morally responsible engineering is applied during the design stage, (2) the autonomous weapons systems …
22. Under IHL, the substantive rules described above are complemented by a procedural rule. As with any other weapon, means or method of warfare, States have the positive obligation to determine, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of any AWS, whether their employment would, in some or all circumstances, contravene existing international law. In …
Finally, we have consistently heard in the CCW interest expressed on the weapons review process and about the requirement to conduct a legal review of all new weapon systems, including LAWS. We believe that this is an area on which we should focus as an interim step as we continue our consideration of LAWS in …
We would like to contribute to the discussion with a brief account of the Swedish experiences of the Article 36 review process. The Swedish Delegation for International Humanitarian Law Monitoring of Arms Projects (the Delegation) was established in The Delegation is an independent authority and not part of the Government or the Swedish Armed Forces. …
However, at the bottom of the issue lies the fact that a legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare is crucial. Sweden set up a Delegation for International law monitoring of Weapons projects already a long time ago. This delegation acts as an independent authority and is not part of the government. …
While a number of states have suggested that action around national legal reviews of weapons, under the framework of article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, could constitute a basis for addressing the serious concerns that states have raised in relation to autonomous weapons, our observation is that national reviews are insufficient …
… increased transparency and information-sharing around guidelines and best practices for weapons reviews could play an important role in assisting States fulfill their Article 36 obligations with regards to LAWS. National Statement of Canada (Informal Meeting of Experts, 11-15 April 2016) 3
Article 36 Weapons Reviews are the correct means to assess a weapon, means, or method of warfare and its use, as required by Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention. The UK is aware that despite the large numbers of States being signatories to the first Protocol, not all formally conduct legal weapons reviews. Conversely …
In this context, the obligation to conduct legal reviews is central to discussions on autonomous weapons systems. We see a number of challenges related to autonomous weapons systems distinct from traditional weapons reviews. Specifically, the question is how such systems and their specific characteristics can be meaningfully tested. Beyond the purely technical challenge of assessing …
Technology develops in unforeseeable ways and comes in virtually unlimited varieties of shapes and modes of action. Given this challenge, it is for good reason that the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law avoid specifying particular technologies. The general, abstract approach of international humanitarian law maintains its applicability, also to future technologies, by focusing on …
The ICRC welcomes the recognition by States of the importance of reviewing new weapons to ensure their compatibility with international law, and stresses that efforts to strengthen national legal review processes are complementary and mutually reinforcing of discussions at the international level, in particular in the CCW meetings of experts. However, the legal review faces …
We further underline, that each and every state has the ultimate responsibility in every situation where norms of international humanitarian or human rights law are breached. This includes of course the provisions in the Geneva conventions first additional protocol on the review of the legality of new weapons systems. Finland will, for our part, review …
The Belgian Commission for the Legal Review of New Weapons was established by the General Order-J/836 issued by the Chief of Defence on 18th July 2002. The establishment of the Commission aimed at formalizing the respect of the obligation coming out of article 36. The Belgian Commission is a permanent advisory body that reports to …
The Netherlands believes that, in assessing whether autonomous weapon systems are under meaningful human control, there is an important role for the Article 36 procedure of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Article 36 obliges States Parties to determine whether new means and methods of warfare are permitted under international law. We underlined …
