In relation to weapons review, we would agree with the ICRC that there are too many questions related to AWS to leave it up to national legal reviews of weapons to address them.
Application of these reviews is already weak: The level of compliance is low; transparency is lacking; there is no standardisation; there is a varying interpretation of existing international legal rules; and there is no clarity about how to assess the necessary form or level of human control/human judgement needed in order to ensure a weapon is legal.
We have some specific questions on weapon reviews:
- States are obligated to conduct a legal weapons review against the provisions of Additional Protocol I or other rules of international law applicable to the State Party. It was unclear to us what role is being envisaged for human rights law within the ‘weapons review criteria’. Could you and other presenters explain how human rights law could be relevant in this regard?
- If a new weapon must be assessed in terms of its ‘normal, intended circumstances of use’, and a weapons reviewer does not concern herself with the legality of individual attacks, then what should come out of a weapons review in terms of normative guidance to one’s own forces, to ensure that the new weapon will in fact only be used ‘as intended’? For example, this might be important if a weapon was only intended for use as a defensive system.
Remarks by Article 36 on IHL (15 April 2015)
