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.
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.