On paragraph 39(a), the UK supports the inclusion of legal reviews within the measures. This group has long recognised the important role of legal review of weapons, not only in Guiding Principle (e), but also in its reports and working papers, which have considered the lawfulness of use across the life cycle of laws. At the same time, we can support the view that the first sentence of subparagraph should more closely reflect the legal requirements and the language of Guiding Principle (e). In our view, the particular value of the sub-paragraph lies in the encouragement of the voluntary exchange of practice in the second sentence. It is in that which we can build international confidence in the standards applied to legal reviews of these systems. We therefore don’t see there to be a loss in maintaining a stricter approach to the language in the first sentence. We also note that subparagraph addresses the issue of further development or modification that may warrant further review. Read together, subparagraphs and can therefore reflect both the review of new weapons and the review of weapons that have been modified. The United Kingdom would, however, reiterate its comment that the standard of materiality is more familiar within the discipline of legal review. We would therefore suggest that sub-paragraph read as follows: ensure that any further development of or modifications to existing laws that have a material impact on the operational the functioning of their target, identification, selection and engagement functions, or on their anticipated effects, are reviewed to ensure compliance with IHL.
Statement by the United Kingdom (GGE LAWS, 2 September 2026) 22:35
