As for paragraph 39, We recognize that this paragraph largely reflects the duty found in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Some States, acting in their sovereign right, chose not to join the Protocol. However, we also know that some States not parties to the Protocol have developed effective review procedures, while some States that are parties to the Protocol lack such procedures. Therefore, there exists no straightforward connection between membership in the Protocol and legal reviews. And thus, we cannot agree that introduction of paragraph 39 of the text would amount to imposing an obligation under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. At that, we take review of weapons, means and methods of warfare as an emerging standard of international law that reflects, that receives increasing attention in recent years. We furthermore believe that the adoption of the existing version of the text of paragraph 39 may contribute to the development of that standard, regardless of the instrument in which it is reflected. A review is especially important for new technologies, capabilities of which are not entirely understandable. We therefore deem it vital to maintain the review obligation in the existing text. We do not agree with the point that obligations under subparagraphs alpha and bravo are essentially identical and can therefore be merged or omitted. While the first paragraph speaks about the development of the new lethal autonomous weapon systems, the second one addresses modification of existing laws. Our delegation believes that such paragraph Bravo serves as an important safeguard against misuse of technologies. We do not oppose proposals to reformulate this paragraph. provided that any such formulation clearly reflects the distinction between existing and new AI capabilities.
Statement by Ukraine (GGE LAWS, 2 September 2026) 7:04
