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 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 …