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.
7 positions Pakistan (remove filter)
2026
Statement by Pakistan
On paragraph 39, my delegation supports the Article 36 review obligation as it is currently drafted. We would note and welcome also sub-paragraph (b) of 39, which extends review to further development and modification affecting the identification, selection and engagement functions or the anticipated effects.
REAIM Pathways to Action
… 7. Building on the Call to Action advanced at the REAIM Summit 2023 in The Hague and the Blueprint for Action advanced at the REAIM Summit 2024 in Seoul, convinced that the time has come to take steps towards operationalization of the principles reflected …
2025
Statement by Pakistan
…ensuring IHL compliance must begin at the development stage. And right now many Delegations have pointed out—delegation of Italy also has pointed out—that Article 36 of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions do affirm the necessity of ensuring compliance with IHL from the …
2023
Statement by Pakistan
We would also like to appreciate your deft handling of this body and your introduction under this topic, which we found very useful. Some very pertinent questions were raised by you. … [W]e can go with you, when you characterise our discussions under this topic, …
Proposal for an international legal instrument on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
23. … National regulations and responses alone such as national weapons reviews are useful but not sufficient. The GGE is not the platform to confer legitimacy on national measures, which cannot be verified.
2018
Statement by Pakistan
We are of the view that a Political Declaration or non-legally binding Code of Conduct comprising voluntary measures can only be an interim step towards a legally binding instrument. Similarly, the “weapon review” required under Article 36 of [AP I] is not sufficient to deal …
2015
Statement by Pakistan
The suggestion to limit the evaluation of the development and employment of LAWS to a purely national exercise including national reviews under Article-36, while appealing and convenient for the developers of such technologies, is not convincing or satisfactory for us and the large majority present …