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.
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 …