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 New Zealand
As one of the few countries that undertakes Article 36 reviews for new weapons, munitions, methods and means of warfare, New Zealand encourages all States parties to [AP I] to fulfil their existing legal obligations for weapons reviews. New Zealand also supports any initiatives which …
Statement by New Zealand
Among the outcomes from this Group, New Zealand would like to see clear recognition of the importance of strengthening the operation of Art 36 reviews. We welcome the efforts being made by the ICRC to progress work on sharing best practice methods for conducting reviews …