Positions of States and Organisations

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.

2016

  1. Statement by Germany

    11–15 April 2016State or organisation: GermanyForum: MX LAWS 2016

    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 …

  2. Statement by Germany

    11–15 April 2016State or organisation: GermanyForum: MX LAWS 2016

    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 …