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.
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 …