This is on the questions we had before lunch. We believe that legal reviews can assist in insurance compliance with IHL but it’s one of several tools in the tool-kit, including training and {operational} planning, etc. And it’s important that legal reviews are complete and cover all aspects: that the procedures include every technological aspect, from weapon effects to software. And regarding fragmenting norms, etc, … if the procedures and the methods of performance reviews are similar in different countries, the risk of fragmenting is of course reduced. And this could be enhanced by conferences and international conferences leading to more common ways and methods for reviews because sharing methods doesn’t need to reveal any information of the actual systems which could lead to a more standardised and equal way. And regarding definitions of LAWS, what is special or critical about LAWS is really the amount of software not the definition of the word autonomy or automation. There is no really meaningful limit on how much software or implementation of algorithms you have to talk about an autonomous system; it’s really the quality of the number of functions or the quality. So there is no limit but recognising the need for adequate methods for analysing and reviewing functions, implementing. And there you can rely on other standards from safety critical systems and extend those to identifying possible pitfalls or difficulties. And by this you can develop national standards that could be shared to both improve the national review and to ensure compliance with IHL.
Statement by Sweden under agenda item 5, topic 5 (9 March 2023, 2nd intervention, transcript)
