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.
8 positions Mexico (remove filter)
2026
Statement by Mexico
On [paragraph] 39, we believe that legal reviews are necessary to identify in advance the private use and the necessary conditions in order to ensure the compatibility of laws with IHL. In this respect, we support the current language of the text and the subparagraph.
2023
Statement by Mexico
We wish to begin by saying that we agree with you and with other delegations that have spoken here this morning. We believe that there is considerable convergence on this issue. It is true that current legal review obligations under IHL apply generally speaking to …
2022
Elements for a Legally Binding Instrument to Address the Challenges Posed by Autonomy in Weapon Systems
V. Legal Weapons Review 22. Legal weapons review must include an assessment that allows for the understanding of the attributes and effects in weapons with autonomous capabilities, as well as its conformity with international humanitarian law and international law, in particular: (a) Evaluate its technical …
Working paper
1. This Working Paper sets out the following considerations and elements for the future work of the Group. The GGE should: … 13. Recall the obligation for States to conduct national weapon reviews, as codified in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva …
2021
Elements for a Future Normative Framework
Recommendations towards a normative framework 11. In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of any AWS, States must be able to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by IHL or any other applicable rule of international law. It is …
Joint submission on possible consensus recommendations
IV. Weapons Reviews Weapons reviews, including art. 36 reviews, will continue to play an important role in weapons development. In the evaluation of weapons systems based on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, key challenges in the regulation and the nature of the systems …
2014
Statement by Mexico
Además, reconocemos la aplicabilidad, en esta materia, de los limites y obligaciones preventivas previstas en el derecho internacional humanitario. Entre otros, la obligación de revisión prevista en el artículo 36 del Protcolo Adicional I a los Convenios de Ginebra, obliga a los Estados a asegurar …
2006
IHL and ERW: Response from Mexico
20. In keeping with article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977, as well as other provisions of international law, Mexico has machinery which reviews the lawfulness of the manufacture, purchase, transfer, storage, sale, import, export, possession and carrying of weapons, ammunition and explosives. 21. …