Overall Purpose and Structure
The purpose of the Portal is to provide transparency of national policies and strategies relating to legal the legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare, share information of existing practice and lessons learned.
The Portal will be a voluntary exchange of information that respects States’ national security and confidentiality considerations. It will only contain information that States have already made public or that they are prepared to share publicly.
The Portal will focus on the legal review process, rather than lawfulness or otherwise of specific weapons, means or methods of warfare.
When completed, the Portal will comprise five parts:
| Part | Description | Authors |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | An overview of the nature and development of legal reviews as a mechanism for assessing compliance with international legal obligations | editors |
| 2 | A collation of statements made by States and other entities in relation to legal reviews in various international and domestic fora | editors |
| 3 | Overviews of the relevant policies and practices of individual States that undertake legal reviews | external experts and editors |
| 4 | A collection of useful resources for States developing the legal review process, or that are interested in doing so, and for officials conducting the reviews | editors |
| 5 | Discussions of special challenges and considerations with respect to the legal review of particular technologies | external experts and editors |
General Guidance for Contributions
Each national overview or technology-specific discussions should:
- generally not exceed 2,000 words (but a longer contribution may be appropriate where the practice of a State is very extensive or where the technology poses significant new challenges);
- identify its author(s) and provide a 1-2 sentence byline(s) indicating affiliation and expertise;
- refer to its sources in the form of in-text references or hyperlinks (as is common in blog posts) rather than footnotes or endnotes;
- should follow, as far as possible, the structure and use the headings set out below;
- should seek to respond, as far as feasible, to the questions listed below.
Part 3: National Overviews
Each national overview focus on the law, policy and/or practice of a specific State in relation to the legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare.
Legal/policy basis
- Is the State a party to Additional Protocol I? If so, when did the State sign, ratify, accede to, etc, to Additional Protocol I?
- What is the legal or policy basis for the legal review process domestically?
- When and how was the review mechanism established?
Review authority
- Who is responsible for conducting legal reviews?
- Does a specific official need to formally approve or endorse the review outcome for it to be finalised?
Scope of review
- How are ‘weapons, means and methods of warfare’ defined for the purposes of the review?
- What forms part of a weapon system?
- Does military doctrine fall within the scope of the review?
- Do rules of engagement fall within the scope of the review?
- Do cyber capabilities fall within the scope of the review?
- How are modifications of weapons, means and methods of warfare dealt with?
- Are weapons, means and methods of warfare that have already been fielded subject to a subsequent legal review based on novel uses or the evolution of the law?
Standard of review
- What rules of international law are considered in the conduct of the review (e.g., international humanitarian law, arms control and disarmament law, international human rights law, environmental law)?
- Are there any circumstances in which targeting law (conduct of hostilities rules) would be considered in the review? How, if at all, is the Martens Clause considered?
- Does a review consider any constraints that go beyond binding international law (e.g., domestic law, domestic policy, non-binding international instruments, possible future developments in international law, ethics)?
- Are any specific perspectives (e.g., gender-specific considerations, cultural factors) incorporated into the evaluation?
Conduct of review
- At what stage – i.e. study, development, acquisition or adoption – is the review conducted? Are there differences in the review process depending on what stage it is initiated or carried out?
- How is the legal review mechanism triggered? Is it tied to a particular step in the capability acquisition framework? Is there a fast track to meet urgent operational requirements?
- How is information about the weapon, means and method of warfare under review gathered?
- What kind of cooperation is there between the review authority, the weapon supplier, the procurement agency and the end-user?
- What kind of testing and risk assessment procedures are conducted? Who is responsible for them? Are there national standards on testing and validation?
- Are weapons and means of warfare tested for reliability? Are there specific levels of reliability that are considered acceptable?
- Does the review consider information derived from other States’ acquisition or use of the same weapon, means and method of warfare?
- Are specific technologies subject to modified review processes?
Outcome and effect
- What types of outcomes can the review have? Can the review authority attach conditions to its approval of a new weapon, means or method of warfare? What kind of findings and recommendations can the review authority make?
- What is the nature of review outcomes? Is the review outcome binding and upon whom?
- Is the review outcome final or can it be subject to further review?
- Is there a record of the review outcome? Who can access these records and under what conditions?
Key documents
- What legal instrument, policy documents, guidelines or manuals establish or guide the review?
Further references
- Other relevant references (e.g., public statements explaining the review practice, academic commentary).
Part 5: Technology-Specific Discussions
Each contribution to this part should identify unique challenges or issues created by the technology in question for the legal review process.
Legal/policy basis and review authority
- Have any States have adopted policies or designated authorities for reviewing the technology in question that would be different from, or additional to, the normal legal review process?
Scope of review
- Does the technology in question create uncertainties about what constitutes a weapon, means or method of warfare?
- Does the technology in question otherwise complicate the decision as to what capabilities should be reviewed?
- What solutions, if any, are there for addressing these issues?
Standard of review
- Does reviewing a capability based on the technology in question create particular interpretive challenges when it comes to the applicable prohibitions or restrictions under international law?
- Does reviewing a capability based on the technology in question require considering aspects of international law other than international humanitarian law or arms control law?
Conduct of review
- Does reviewing a capability based on the technology in question give rise to unique methodological challenges? For example, would specific testing and evaluation, or validation and verification methods need to be utilised to determine the effects of the capability?
Outcome and effect
- Is reviewing a capability based on the technology in question likely to result in particular types of outcomes? For example, are particular types of restrictions especially likely to be placed on the use of the capability as a consequence of the review?
