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.
7 positions Israel (remove filter)
2025
Statement by Israel
There is a reason why definitions of weapons are based on design in particular since they delineate more clearly the types of weapons under consideration and since they better reflect the element of intended circumstances of use which is a crucial element in defining and …
Statement by Israel
Article 36 itself states that, in the development of a new weapon, a High Contracting Party is under the obligation to determine whether its employment will be prohibited by [Additional] Protocol [I] or by any other applicable rule of international law, meaning the Article does …
2023
Statement by Israel
We wanted to join those calling for more discussions regarding national weapons reviews. Notwithstanding that Israel is not a party to [AP I], and as such is not bound by Article 36 of that Protocol, Israel is of the view that conducting legal reviews to …
2021
Statement by Israel
In an effort to contribute to the [Article 5] discussions, Israel has actively participated in the meetings, contributed with participation of relevant experts and also took the opportunity to elaborate on its weapons review procedure… Lastly, another issue that seems to necessitate further discussions is …
2020
National Commentary by Israel
During the GGE meeting of 11-15 April 2016, Israel presented its own domestic process for legal review of new weapons. Notwithstanding that Israel is not party to [AP I] and as such is not bound by Article 36 of that Protocol, Israel is of the …
2016
Statement by Israel
It seems widely accepted that, like every other means of warfare, the use of LAWS is subject to the Law of Armed Conflict. Another observation that seems to be widely supported, regards the importance of conducting legal reviews of weapons, including LAWS. Israel would like …
2015
Statement by Israel
A third assumption is that the use of future LAWS, as any other means of warfare, must comply with the applicable rules of IHL. In fact, prudent employment of LAWS may even promote compliance with IHL. In this context, it seems that states should, when …