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.
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 …