… our delegation strongly supports the inclusion of the topic on the legal weapon reviews with regard to [AWS]. Being one of the key areas of convergence of growing convergence, a comprehensive and in-depth discussion on the subject matter is valuable and beneficial for the work of the group. The incorporation of legal reviews in the majority of the proposals demonstrated the significance of these processes. Their important role has been affirmed in Guiding Principle (e) that states that the High Contracting Party’s obligation to ensure the study, development, deployment and use of a new weapon, means or method of warfare are in full accordance with the applicable international law. A thorough assessment at the national level determines the lawfulness under IHL regulations of a new weapon, means or methods of warfare. [AWS], similar to any other novel weapons, means or methods of warfare, should also be subject to such a process. The complexity of conducting legal weapon reveals, given the intricate nature of the systems under consideration, creates divergent perspectives about the process. Therefore, the group is presented with several different approaches towards legal reviews. The paper submitted by a group of 23 countries, the Roadmap paper, the Palestinian [and] Pakistani papers, duly note the useful and complimentary role of legal reviews. However, they also stress their insufficiency in guaranteeing compliance with IHL. The 2022 US + 5 paper focuses on the function of legal reviews in strengthening compliance with [IHL]. There’s {on} paper details [for] legal reviews to be mandatory.
… in the two-tier approach group paper supported by Bulgaria, legal reviews represent an element in the tier two regulations that ensures compliance with IHL and also a measure for retaining appropriate human control during the development phase by assessing compliance with IHL. On the other hand, as earlier mentioned by the US delegates in the revised joint proposal by the United States and co-sponsored by Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom, legal reviews represent a measure in tier one prohibitions during the development of AWS, which effects can be anticipated and controlled, as required by the principles of distinction and proportionality, as stated in Article 1, para 2. In our view, the above mentioned example demonstrates legal reviews’ importance and resilience for operationalisation of the two-tier approach. As our delegation acknowledged the challenging task of conducting legal reviews processes at the stage of study, development, acquisition and adoption of [AWS], we are highly appreciative of the UK IHL paper, as it represents important questions regarding Article 36 weapon reviews on autonomous systems. These legal reviews should examine weapon systems against biases, as comprehensive testing goes into assuring a system work as intended. Any potential alternation attributable to infield machine learning or/and self-learning could require conducting additional or new legal review procedure in order to guarantee IHL compliance. Potentially new methods of testing of such systems could be introduced. Therefore, highly value states that have more experience in conducting legal weapon reviews and that are already developing procedures for reviewing autonomous systems to share, on a voluntary basis, good practices and lessons learned from national Article 36 procedure in order to enhance transparency and confidence building among states. Similar calls for practical measures can be found in the paper submitted by the group of 23 states and Protocol VI paper and were earlier made by the Swedish, Dutch and Danish delegations.
Statement by Bulgaria under agenda item 5, topic 5 (9 March 2023) (transcript)
