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.
9 positions Brazil (remove filter)
2026
Statement by Brazil
On paragraph 39, my delegation, like those of Pakistan and the ICRC, believe that this is one of the essential elements of the text. We believe that is particularly true with regards to 39 which addresses how the obligation of legal reviews applies specifically to …
2024
Submission by Brazil to the Secretary-General
Therefore, it should be in the interest of States and private companies to draw clear standards, in order to avoid exposure to legal risk as a consequence of violations of IHL committed with the use of AWS that they have developed, produced, acquired or deployed.
2021
Voluntary national contribution of Brazil on the subject of how international law applies to the use of information and communications technologies by States
… according to AP I, States have an obligation, “in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare,” to “determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances,” be prohibited.40 This norm, although being less strict than …
Elements for a Future Normative Framework
Recommendations towards a normative framework 11. In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of any AWS, States must be able to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by IHL or any other applicable rule of international law. It is …
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
Operationalizing the Guiding Principles: A Roadmap for the GGE on LAWS
2. … Brazil would like to put forward four paths of action to build upon the guiding principles and fulfill the mandate of the GGE. The four paths, and its working methodology, are based on a “bottom-up” approach that benefits from domestic advancements in policies …
2019
Statement by Brazil
Brazil acknowledges the importance of weapons reviews in order to support compliance with IHL in the use of novel weapons systems, both under Article 36 of Protocol II [sic!] to the Geneva Conventions and as a corollary of customary international law.
2018
Statement by Brazil
Others appreciate the exchange and deepening of discussions on the challenges ahead, but do not readily accept that LAWS exist, or that entirely autonomous weapons systems will ever exit, because there will always be some degree of human oversight. They believe national assessments under Article …
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from Brazil
31. In each Force there is a sectors responsible for the continuous review of military doctrines, which includes the need to assess the legality of new methods and means of warfare.