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.
13 positions Austria (remove filter)
2026
Statement by Austria
And we see para 34 fully in line with para 39 and appreciate the paragraph following the logic of Article 36 that weapons systems that have been reviewed as not complying with IHL would not be acquired, stockpiled or transferred. That we assess also has …
REAIM Pathways to Action
… 7. Building on the Call to Action advanced at the REAIM Summit 2023 in The Hague and the Blueprint for Action advanced at the REAIM Summit 2024 in Seoul, convinced that the time has come to take steps towards operationalization of the principles reflected …
2025
Statement by Austria
[W]e also support to switch out "employment" to "development and use". The whole life-cycle issue has been discussed also since a long time and this is something we definitely support. It is important as what we are doing here is upholding IHL, and IHL does …
2023
Statement by Austria
As outlined by the address before in this discussion, the conduct of legal reviews is an existing obligation under Article 36 of [AP I], reaffirmed in our context for Guiding Principle (e). It is the task of our expert group to give additional guidance on …
Revised Working Paper
4. It is also a requirement throughout research, development, acquisition and use of [AWS] to constantly review and reassess any possible changes and modifications in the system’s functioning with regard to fulfilment of the conditions listed above. This should include technical aspects such as ‘machine …
2022
Working paper
1. This Working Paper sets out the following considerations and elements for the future work of the Group. The GGE should: … 13. Recall the obligation for States to conduct national weapon reviews, as codified in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva …
2021
Joint submission on possible consensus recommendations
IV. Weapons Reviews Weapons reviews, including art. 36 reviews, will continue to play an important role in weapons development. In the evaluation of weapons systems based on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, key challenges in the regulation and the nature of the systems …
2020
National Commentary by Austria
The legal weapon review outlined in Article 36 of the Geneva Additional Protocol of 1949 requires that "In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its …
2019
Statement by Austria
We share the view expressed earlier that artificial intelligence and self-learning elements raise questions as to how frequently do an [AWS] would need to be reviewed. Weapons reviews are important measures to review the legality of new weapons. Weapon reviews are helpful to establish, whether …
Statement by Austria
… Lastly, we wish to address the issue of national weapon reviews, also referred to as Article 36 weapon reviews. The objective of these reviews is explicitly mentioned in our last years guiding principles. There seems to be convergence of views on the importance and …
2018
Statement by Austria
There seems to be convergence of views on the importance and the merits, but also limitations of article 36. Weapon reviews constitute a critical national implementation mechanism to establish the legality of weapon, means or method of warfare. Article 36 is very valuable in that …
2017
Statement by Austria
The basis for the assessment of lawfulness of new weapons is inter alia enshrined in Article 36 of [AP I]. We encourage all States to strenuously conduct legal weapon reviews for all possible future weapons.
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from Austria
16. In compliance with Article 36 Additional Protocol I every new weapon, means or method of warfare is made subject to an examination with the purpose of determining if its employment would be in some or all circumstances prohibited according to Additional Protocol I or …