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.
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 …