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.
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 …