States and some organisations have expressed their views about the utility, purpose, scope and process of the legal review of weapons in various different contexts. Some of these views have been recorded domestic documents, such as military manuals on the law of armed conflict. Increasingly, however, States and organisations have articulated their positions in a range of international fora, either through written submissions or oral interventions.
This database compiles and organises publicly expressed views in relation to legal reviews, without prejudice to their relative significance or effect (for example, in terms of the development of customary international law). The database aims to comprehensively reflect the views of states but only covers the positions of a small number of selected organisations.
This database currently contains 379 positions and is continuously updated. Any corrections, or suggestions to add material, are welcome.
21 positions Australia (remove filter)
2025
Statement by Australia
Australia supports the inclusion of Paragraphs 1 to 4 in this box which addresses the legal review of LAWS to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. We believe strengthening compliance with existing IHL including through Article 36 legal reviews is the most effective way to …
2024
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Australia
Does the government conduct legal reviews under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to determine whether new weapons, means or methods of warfare may be employed in accordance with Australia’s international legal obligations? Article 36 of Additional Protocol I requires that: In the study, development, …
Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems
Article 1. Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, …
Submission by Australia to the Secretary-General
Legal review of LAWS 22. Legal reviews are a critical safeguard for ensuring all weapons systems are capable of being used in compliance with IHL. A legal review (often referred to as a ‘weapons review’) is the process by which States determine the lawfulness of …
2023
Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems
Article 1. Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, …
Statement by Australia (1st intervention)
My delegation welcomes a discussion on legal reviews of autonomous weapons systems. We see this topic as particularly ripe for further elaboration in the GGE, as – to our mind – effective practices in relation to weapons reviews have the potential to address many of …
Statement by Australia (2nd intervention)
So in answer to the question, “Can legal reviews by themselves ensure compliance with IHL?”, we don’t see it in of itself, sufficient to ensure compliance. We see legal reviews as an important check and balance within a broader system of control as reflective of …
Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems
Article 1: Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, …
2022
Principles and Good Practices on Emerging Technologies in the Area of LAWS
VIII. Good Practices Related to Human-Machine Interaction […] 26. At various stages of the life-cycle of a weapon, the following good practices related to human-machine interaction can strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law, strengthen accountability, and mitigate risks in the use of weapons systems based …
2021
Building on Chile’s proposed four elements of further work
Weapons Reviews Relevant Guiding Principles: In accordance with States’ obligations under international law, in the study, development, acquisition, or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, determination must be made whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by …
Australia’s submission on International Law to be Annexed to the Report of the 2021 Group of Governmental Experts on Cyber
Australia, and other States parties to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are required under Article 36 to determine whether the employment of new weapons, or means or method of warfare, would, in some or all circumstances be prohibited by Additional Protocol …
2020
National Commentary by Australia
Australia believes that an aspect of the current system of international law – embodied in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 contributes to the robust framework for regulating weapons systems, including those with autonomous functionality. Australia’s approach …
2019
Australia’s system of control and application for autonomous weapon systems
16. An important aspect of the review process is an Article 36 Review. In accordance with Australia’s obligation as a party to Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention, an Article 36 Review must be undertaken before a new weapon system can be introduced into …
2018
The Australian Article 36 Review Process
1. Article 36 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (Additional Protocol 1), provides: “In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means …
Statement by Australia
We see the legal framework for reviewing new weapons, means and methods of warfare, under Article 36 of [API], as being of particular importance in ensuring this compliance. We should not overlook or under-value article 36 reviews. Australia would like to encourage in-depth discussion of …
2016
Statement by Australia
May I reaffirm at the outset that Australia takes seriously our responsibilities under the existing legal framework for reviewing new weapons under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. We fully support and adhere to the obligation to …
2014
Statement by Australia
As Australia noted in its opening statement, the last four days have reinforced the need to thoroughly review all new weapons and weapon system technology against the requirements of international humanitarian law or any rule of international law applicable to the reviewing party. This is …
Statement by Australia
It is Australia’s view that how a LAWS might be employed is an essential part of conducting an article 36 review for compliance with IHL. This also involves understanding how militaries undertake operations and the targeting process. A few States present have publically disclosed this …
Statement by Australia
Recent discussions have in particular looked at the application of existing international humanitarian law (IHL) to the potential development of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems. As a party to Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Australia fully supports and has a …
2006
Australia, Military Manual
4.1 Weapons, projectiles, materials and means of warfare which cause unnecessary injury or suffering are not permissible, that is, when the practical effect is to cause injury or suffering which is out of proportion to the military effectiveness of the weapon, projectile, material or means. …
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from Australia
14. Weapon review compliance is also an issue taken seriously by the Australian Defence Force. An Instruction dealing with the legal review of new weapons came into force on 02 June 2005. This requires the legal review of all proposed new weapons to determine whether …