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.
8 positions Belgium (remove filter)
2026
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 …
2024
Statement by Belgium
… although for Belgium the adoption of an international legally binding instrument looking to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapon systems is necessary, my delegation nevertheless thinks that national legal reviews are the best way to fully implement the obligations contained in an international instrument, whether …
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 …
2019
Food for Thought Paper
6. In previous discussions, a number of States pointed to the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons, in accordance with international law and more particularly with article 36 of [API]. In our view, this remains a useful and important avenue to ensure that …
2018
Statement by Belgium
We have a powerful instrument at our disposal to ensure that we do not put into service non IHL compliant weapons. This is Article 36 of [AP I] on the evaluation of the lawfulness of all new weapons. Belgium has put this instrument into practice …
Statement by Belgium
La Belgique considère qu’il est important de poursuivre les échanges sur la mise en œuvre de l’art.36 du 1er Protocole additionnel aux Conventions de Genève et l’obligation d’évaluer la licéité de toute nouvelle arme. Mon pays plaide pour l’universalisation de cet instrument et de la …
2016
Presentation of the Belgian Commission of the Legal Review of New Weapons
The Belgian Commission for the Legal Review of New Weapons was established by the General Order-J/836 issued by the Chief of Defence on 18th July 2002. The establishment of the Commission aimed at formalizing the respect of the obligation coming out of article 36. The …
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from Belgium
14. In accordance with article 36 of Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Geneva Conventions, a commission has been set up in the Belgian armed forces to evaluate new weapons, means and methods of warfare from the legal standpoint. 15. The Commission’s task is to …