And we would also add that paragraph 34, which is an extremely narrow prohibition since it only kicks in at the manufacturing level, does not contradict paragraph 39 on legal reviews, but rather complements it or works in tandem with it. … If a legal review concludes that a weapon system cannot be used in line with international law, paragraph 34 underscores that it must not be manufactured. I think others have mentioned that as well, but the word manufacturing was carefully chosen back in the day precisely because of those concerns that some have raised today regarding the potential need to design and develop small quantities for testing of countermeasures and such. … Regarding paragraph 39, in your revised proposal that is. the chapeau and subparagraph A. I mean, we’re not in a position to accept any weakening of this language from must to should because for us, legal reviews are a legal obligation. And we know, of course, that not all states are party to AP I Article 36. And this was a much debated topic in previous sessions and informals. And that is precisely why the chapeau is caveated with the words as appropriate and the words their obligations under international law. So, I mean, India made a proposal a little while ago, if we understood it correctly, to sort of reorder the paragraph to highlight, you know, in the first bit that states might have varying obligations under IHL. I mean, we’ll have to see it on paper to be sure if that is something we can live with, but it sounded like something that could possibly be workable, but I’m not sure. I mean, we would definitely prefer just keeping the formulation that is there also because if we understood the Indian proposal right, it doesn’t really amount to any substantive change. Regarding paragraph 39b, this is particularly salient and useful in light of the quickly sort of evolving nature of laws. The US made a proposal there that sounded interesting, but I’m not sure that we caught all details of it, so we would need to see that text on paper, I think, in order to be sure.
Statement by Norway (GGE LAWS, 2 September 2026) 2:38:22
