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 Italy
We also welcomed the shared reiteration that rules and principles of [IHL] must apply to all weapons systems, including LAWS. We continue to believe that our engagement towards the full implementation of, and respect for, the rules and principles of IHL must stand firm independently …
Statement by Italy
I believe that the starting point should remain a common, shared recognition that our engagement towards the full implementation of, and respect for, the rules and principles of IHL must stand firm independently of the specificity of any weapons system. I am referring not only …
Statement by Italy
… international humanitarian law continues to apply fully to all weapons systems, including the potential development and use of LAWS. To this aim, conducting legal reviews of weapons, means and methods of warfare, in accordance with art. 36 of the Additional Protocol I to the …