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.
22 positions Netherlands (remove filter)
2026
REAIM Pathways to Action
… 7. Building on the Call to Action advanced at the REAIM Summit 2023 in The Hague and the Blueprint for Action advanced at the REAIM Summit 2024 in Seoul, convinced that the time has come to take steps towards operationalization of the principles reflected …
2023
Statement by the Netherlands (1st intervention)
As we and many other states have mentioned, the ability to exercise human control and judgments during the development and use of [AWS] is key to ensure compliance with obligations under international law, in particular [IHL]. Conducting a legal review of [AWS] in line with …
Statement by the Netherlands (2nd intervention)
… to turn to your first questions, and these are, of course, kind of preliminary remarks, I would say that legal reviews by themselves are not the only tool to ensure compliance with IHL, and I agree with my colleague from Ecuador, who made the …
2022
Working Paper
B. In order to operationalize the two-tier approach, the HCP should: (b) Commit to only develop, produce, acquire, modify, deploy or use lethal weapons systems featuring autonomy when the following provisions are fulfilled: i. compliance with international law is ensured when studying, acquiring, adopting or …
2021
Answers by the Netherlands to the Guiding Questions
Where and how to draw the line to determine what [AWS] would be lawful or not? … the article 36 review process is critical in this process of determining whether a weapon system is capable of being used in compliance with IHL. As the Netherlands …
Possible recommendations in relation to the clarification, consideration and development of aspects of the normative and operational framework
D. Weapon reviews High Contracting Parties, at their Sixth Review Conference, confirm that in the study, development, acquisition, or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, States are under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, …
2020
Statement by the Netherlands
The Netherlands considers weapons reviews — mandatory for us under international law — crucial for all weapon systems, including weapon systems with some degree of autonomy. A better understanding of how weapon reviews work and sharing experiences and best practices will contribute to improve the …
Statement by the Netherlands
Turning to the issue of the development and testing of weapons, the Netherlands wishes to emphasize once again the importance of legal weapon reviews. As a State Party to [API], the Netherlands has a standing legal review process for all new weapons, means and methods …
National Commentary by the Netherlands
The Netherlands is a State Party to Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (AP I) and has a standing legal review process for all new weapons, means and methods of warfare as well as for all modifications to existing weapons, means and methods of …
2019
Statement by the Netherlands
The Netherlands believes that such a document [an interpretative guide or codes of conduct] should focus, amongst others, on meaningful human control in relation to the deployment of autonomous weapons, as well as on how to properly consider meaningful human control in the Article 36 …
Statement by the Netherlands
On weapon reviews procedures. To further IHL compliance, the Netherlands is of the opinion that (1) the implementation of Article 36 procedures should be promoted (2) the concept of meaningful human control should play an important role within the Article 36 review and that (3) …
Statement by the Netherlands
… meaningful human control should consider, inter alia, the following elements: (3) The execution of legal weapon reviews that pay sufficient attention to the level of autonomy of the weapon system.
2018
Statement by the Netherlands
Article 36 of [API] contains the obligation to review whether the development or acquisition of new means and methods of warfare are permitted under international law. The Netherlands would like to underline that: (1) Efforts to ensure full and universal implementation of Article 36 procedures …
Statement by the Netherlands
Given the fact that most [AWS] involve a high level of complexity, the Netherlands believes that the following elements are of importance: … The execution of legal weapon reviews that pay sufficient attention to the autonomy aspect of the [AWS]. If needed, boundaries could be …
Statement by the Netherlands
The unanimous conclusion by the High Contracting Parties that all weapon systems, including LAWS, and their deployment in armed conflict, must comply with the requirements set by international law, in particular [IHL]. In this light, we encourage all states to fulfil their obligations under article …
2017
Weapons review mechanisms
I. Summary 1. Limitations on the choice of methods and means of warfare can already be found in the oldest sources of international humanitarian law and were repeated and re-established in article 35 of the First Additional protocol (AP1). The preamble of the Convention on …
Examination of various dimensions of emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems
16. For most states, weapon reviews are compulsory based on Article 36 of [API], which obliges States Parties involved in the development or acquisition of new means and methods of warfare to determine whether they are permitted under international law. The Netherlands is of the …
2016
Opening Statement by the Netherlands
Please allow me, to summarize explain in summary the Dutch position: […] 9. Autonomous weapon systems need to remain under meaningful human control. Therefore it is important that when procuring autonomous weapons, the government should ensure that (1). the concept of morally responsible engineering is …
Statement by the Netherlands
The Netherlands believes that, in assessing whether autonomous weapon systems are under meaningful human control, there is an important role for the Article 36 procedure of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Article 36 obliges States Parties to determine whether new means and …
2015
Statement by the Netherlands
On the question of legality of weapon systems we are guided by international law and in particular by International Humanitarian Law. All weapon systems (and their eventual use in armed conflicts) should meet the rules and regulations of international law. Part of that is Art. …
Statement by the Netherlands
… we also see value to further discuss the idea of a peer review process on Article 36.
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from the Netherlands
8. … The Netherlands has a review mechanism based on the requirements of Article 36 of AP1 which reviews both methods and means of warfare to ensure their compatibility with international law, including IHL. The mechanism was set up by Ministerial Decree of the Minister …