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.
14 positions Sweden (remove filter)
2026
Statement by Sweden
Legal review is a key issue for Sweden and therefore we consider that para 39(a) is an essential part of the text. We welcome the changes made in paragraph 39(a) of the Chair's additional suggestions with the proposed insertion in the study, development acquisition or …
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 …
2024
Submission by Sweden to the Secretary-General
Review process States are obligated to determine whether the employment of a new weapon would be prohibited under international law. In Sweden, this is carried out by the Delegation for International Humanitarian Law Monitoring of Arms Projects. All defence-related authorities must, without delay, report to …
2023
Statement by Sweden (1st intervention)
[A] s other delegations here today, Sweden like to underline the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of warfare. And we find working papers that engage with the obligation of Article 36 in relation to LAWS useful in the work …
Statement by Sweden (2nd intervention)
This is on the questions we had before lunch. We believe that legal reviews can assist in insurance compliance with IHL but it’s one of several tools in the tool-kit, including training and {operational} planning, etc. And it’s important that legal reviews are complete and …
2022
Working Paper
B. In order to operationalize the two-tier approach, the HCP should: (b) Commit to only develop, produce, acquire, modify, deploy or use lethal weapons systems featuring autonomy when the following provisions are fulfilled: i. compliance with international law is ensured when studying, acquiring, adopting or …
2021
Statement by Sweden
Going forward, the GGE needs to continue to examine and clarify the type of normative or regulatory framework needed to effectively address issues related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. The GGE should also further explore how weapons reviews can be enhanced and …
2020
National Commentary by Sweden
States have an obligation under international law (article 36 of AP I) to determine whether the employment of a new weapon would be prohibited under international law. In Sweden, this is carried out by the Delegation for International Humanitarian Law Monitoring of Arms Projects. All …
2018
Statement by Sweden
… we would like to underline the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of warfare. We found the working papers on article 36 reviews, as well as on ensuring compliance with [IHL] presented to the meeting of the GGE very …
2016
Statement by Sweden
We would like to contribute to the discussion with a brief account of the Swedish experiences of the Article 36 review process. The Swedish Delegation for International Humanitarian Law Monitoring of Arms Projects (the Delegation) was established in The Delegation is an independent authority and …
Statement by Sweden
However, at the bottom of the issue lies the fact that a legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare is crucial. Sweden set up a Delegation for International law monitoring of Weapons projects already a long time ago. This delegation acts as …
2015
Statement by Sweden
As a step forward, at this stage, we believe that developing information -‐ sharing measures among interested states is a useful way to go. We have listened carefully to suggestions on this from the expert panel and to comments from States and believe that it …
2014
Statement by Sweden
Before the deployment of any new weapon system, including one that is autonomous, there is an obligation to conduct a review of the means and methods of warfare in accordance with Article 36 of Additional Protocol I.
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from Sweden
9. In 1974 the Government established a Delegation for International Humanitarian Law Monitoring of Arms Projects (see Ordinance concerning monitoring of arms projects in accordance with the requirements of international law, 1994:536). Its task is to examine all weapon projects not only with respect to …