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.
20 positions Germany (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 …
2023
Statement by Germany
The 2019 [GGE] adopted 11 guidelines reflect that “in accordance with states’ obligations under international law, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or methods of warfare, determination must be made whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, …
2022
Working Paper
B. In order to operationalize the two-tier approach, the HCP should: (b) Commit to only develop, produce, acquire, modify, deploy or use lethal weapons systems featuring autonomy when the following provisions are fulfilled: i. compliance with international law is ensured when studying, acquiring, adopting or …
2021
Outline for a normative and operational framework on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS
II. Operational Framework 3. To operationalize the principles enshrined in the normative framework, the High contracting Parties could agree on a compilation of measures and policies, to be implemented at national level: … (b) To operationalise the general provision 2c, an appropriate/sufficient scheme of human …
Voluntary national contributions of Germany on the subject of how international law applies to the use of information and communications technologies by States
The obligation to take precautions in attack is complemented by the obligation to conduct weapon reviews of any new means or method of cyber warfare to determine whether its employment would, in some or in all circumstances, be prohibited by international law.96 The findings of …
Germany, On the Application of International Law in Cyberspace
The obligation to take precautions in attack is complemented by the obligation to conduct weapon reviews of any new means or method of cyber warfare to determine whether its employment would, in some or in all circumstances, be prohibited by international law. The findings of …
2020
National Commentary by Germany
Germany reaffirms that Guiding Principle (e) underlines the importance of human responsibility during the phases preceding the deployment of a weapon system. Particularly for highly complex systems with autonomous functions, the development phase is of crucial importance since the configurations determining the behavior of the …
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Germany
b. Weapon Reviews Under the provisions of Art. 36 AP I, all contracting parties are obliged, when studying, developing, acquiring or adopting a new weapon, means or method of warfare, to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances of employment, be prohibited …
2018
Statement by Germany
Legal/Ethical Issues […] Germany remains fully committed to the implementation of Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), concerning the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare. As previously stated, in 2016 Germany …
Statement by Germany
Only weapons that are operated in compliance with IHL are acceptable means of warfare. This might, as it is widely agreed on, only be assured as long as humans retain the sufficient control, at least over the critical functions of the weapons they operate, to …
2017
Statement by Germany
We believe that this GGE should consider exploring concrete options for transparency and confidence building. In our view voluntary measures that could increase confidence between States and enhance compliance with the existing regulations such as Article 36 of [AP I] include establishing transparency and facilitating …
For consideration by the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
C. Options for transparency and confidence building 9. Voluntary measures that could enhance compliance with the existing regulations (Article 36 of [AP I] on weapons reviews) and increase confidence between States include: (a) Establishing transparency and facilitating the identification of best-practices in conducting weapons reviews …
2016
Statement by Germany
Fourthly, without LAWS being a reality yet and without even a definition of LAWS transparency and confidence building measures especially with regard to the introduction of new weapons systems are of crucial importance. We should therefor make full use of the process of Legal Weapons …
Statement by Germany
Technology develops in unforeseeable ways and comes in virtually unlimited varieties of shapes and modes of action. Given this challenge, it is for good reason that the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law avoid specifying particular technologies. The general, abstract approach of international humanitarian law …
2015
Statement by Germany
With respect to possible approaches to the implementation of the weapons review process, we would like to share our respective national format. In order to foster the implementation of the obligation under Article 36 AP I, Germany has established a Steering Group "Review of new …
Statement by Germany
A number of delegations including Germany have already presented the general outline of their national legal review procedures under Article 36 AP I during this week. We see merit in elaborating further on the idea to share national regulations in this regard, to look for …
Statement by Germany
Technology develops in unforeseeable ways and comes in virtually unlimited varieties of shapes and modes of action. Fundamental principles of International Humanitarian Law in tune with this challenge avoid for good reasons specifications of particular technologies. The general-abstract approach of International Humanitarian Law keeps it …
2014
Statement by Germany
Could it be possible to create more transparency about national policies with regard to new weapons systems as well as transparency about the mechanisms to text and validate these weapons systems before deployment? The Article 36-reviews may play an important role.
Statement by Germany
To verify compliance with the two rules listed above [ie, prohibition of indiscriminate weapons and weapons that cause unnecessary suffering], a State intent on fielding a new weapon must conduct a thorough legal review. This requirement for a legal review, which appears in Article 36 …
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from Germany
37. The Legal Affairs Directorate of the Federal Ministry of Defense is responsible for Federal Armed Forces issues within the area of legal competence of the ministry. In the framework of the review process, the directorate has due regard, inter alia, to the “Manual regarding …