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.

2021

  1. Building on Chile’s proposed four elements of further work

    27 September 2021State or organisation: AustraliaState or organisation: CanadaState or organisation: JapanState or organisation: Republic of KoreaState or organisation: United KingdomState or organisation: United StatesForum: GGE LAWS 2021

    Weapons Reviews Relevant Guiding Principles: In accordance with States’ obligations under international law, in the study, development, acquisition, or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, determination must be made whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by …

  2. Statement by Japan

    4 August 2021State or organisation: JapanForum: GGE LAWS 2021

    In order to ensure that the military use of emerging technologies in the area of LAWS is in compliance with international legal obligations, particularly [IHL], we must carefully study the use in the entire life cycle of weapons systems. In particular, the hardware and software …