On weapon reviews procedures. To further IHL compliance, the Netherlands is of the opinion that (1) the implementation of Article 36 procedures should be promoted (2) the concept of meaningful human control should play an important role within the Article 36 review and that (3) greater transparency concerning the outcomes of these procedures and more sharing information and best practices internationally, is required.
In that regard, we commend Australia for their very transparent working paper on the Australian Article 36 Review Process. In this context, I also wish to highlight the Working Paper on Weapons Review Mechanisms submitted by the Netherlands and Switzerland in 2017, which details the Article 36 Review Process in depth and highlights potential challenges in conducting such reviews.
Welcoming Argentina’s 2018 working paper on this issue, allow me to share some details on the art. 36 review process from a national perspective. For the Netherlands, the review mechanism is a multi-stage and multidisciplinary process, involving legal review, medical analysis and technological input, taking into account primarily the legal aspects, but also including political and environmental concerns, as well as issues of possible impact on public opinion.
The review is carried out in a multidisciplinary team (legal, operational, technical, medical, political) and subsequently subject to review at higher levels, of equally multidisciplinary composition. The outcome of the review requires final approval by the minister. The expertise required to carry out the evaluation extends not only to the functioning of the weapon or means of warfare, but also to the possible effects thereof on persons, objects, and the environment, as part of its normal functioning.
These effects are relevant for evaluating the device in connection with certain specific provisions of international law, but also for the evaluation of whether the device causes superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and can be limited as required by the principle of distinction. …
In the interest of encouraging or assisting weapons reviews, States might consider making the outcomes of their reviews available where possible, whether to the general public or to other States on a confidential basis.
To further transparency on a national level, the Netherlands Ministry of Defense explicitly mentions the outcome of a weapon review regarding the aspect of meaningful human control when it informs parliament on the procurement of new weapons systems with autonomous functions. These communications to parliament are publicly available.
Statement by the Netherlands under agenda item 5(a): an exploration of the potential challenges (26 March 2019)
