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 Finland
The obligation to carry out legal reviews of new weapons under article 36 of [AP I] is crucial for ensuring that a State’s armed forces are capable of conducting hostilities in accordance with its international obligations. We call for the universalization of this important protocol …
Statement by Finland
When considering the human element in the use of lethal force, Finland believes that compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law is a key component. The notion that humans will now and in the future exert control over decisions of life and death needs …