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.
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 …