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.
24 positions Switzerland (remove filter)
2026
Statement by Switzerland
With your indulgence, I will also come back to the paragraph on legal reviews. In that regard, we also recall the adoption of guiding principle (e) in 2019 and the language contained in there, and we are open to study the proposal of the US …
Statement by Switzerland
On paragraph 39, We support the proposed amendments and the alignment with the text of Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Together with the chapeau, we are very close to Guiding Principle (e), which is now adapted to specifically address LAWS. Switzerland cannot support proposals …
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
Statement by Switzerland
While not the sole solution for the challenges associated with increasing autonomy in weapons systems, legal reviews are a crucial instrument and thus can be part of the solution. A well-designed weapons review mechanism has not only the potential to determine whether or not an …
2023
Statement by Switzerland
We are pleased to note that almost all proposals and working papers on the table stressed the importance of legal reviews of weapons. While not the sole solution for the challenges associated with increasing autonomy and weapon systems, legal reviews are a crucial instrument and …
2022
Working paper
1. This Working Paper sets out the following considerations and elements for the future work of the Group. The GGE should: … 13. Recall the obligation for States to conduct national weapon reviews, as codified in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva …
2021
Switzerland’s Position Paper on the Application of International Law in Cyberspace
States and parties to a conflict have an overarching obligation to “respect and ensure respect” for IHL “in all circumstances”. It is uncontested that preparatory measures must be taken to implement IHL and that its implementation needs to be supervised. This requires states and parties …
Food for thought by Switzerland
4. Weapons Reviews An implementation of IHL in good faith requires an assessment whether means and methods of warfare can be used in conformity with IHL prior to their employment in international as well as non-international armed conflicts. Conducting legal reviews, as specified in article …
2020
National Commentary by Switzerland
Switzerland would like to recall the obligation of all States to “respect and ensure respect” for IHL (see common Article 1 to the Geneva Conventions) and the prohibition to use means and methods of warfare in contradiction to IHL. Therefore, an implementation of IHL in …
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Switzerland
3.2 Procedure for assessing new weapons IHL legal framework Article 36 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which partly reflects customary international law,27 provides that in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, every state …
2018
Statement by Switzerland
[A political declaration] could spell out a number of measures such as transparency, legal reviews, best practices, technical standards or other policy measures.
Statement by Switzerland
A first example for concrete work in the CCW — whether triggered by a political declaration as just referred to, or by a more specific GGE mandate — are weapons reviews: This week showed again the centrality of the obligation to conduct legal reviews in …
Statement by Switzerland
Arguably, it might be possible in the future, to exert already a significant level of [human] control in the development and programming phase…Through legal reviews the capability to use a given system, in all or some circumstances, in compliance with international law can be verified.
Statement by Switzerland
Key elements of such a [political] declaration [by the CCW] could include: … In view of ensuring compliance, a reaffirmation of the obligation to review new weapons and to determine whether their employment would, in some or all circumstances, contravene existing international law; … Still …
2017
Statement by Switzerland
… with regard to legal reviews, there appears to be consensus that autonomous weapon systems qualify as weapons in the sense of Article 36 of Additional Protocol 1 and are the subject to a new weapons review process like any other weapon. In this regard, …
A “compliance-based” approach to autonomous weapons
19. Under IHL, the substantive rules described above are complemented by a procedural rule. As with any other weapon, means or method of warfare, States have the positive obligation to determine, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of any [AWS], whether their employment would, …
Weapons review mechanisms
I. Summary 1. Limitations on the choice of methods and means of warfare can already be found in the oldest sources of international humanitarian law and were repeated and re-established in article 35 of the First Additional protocol (AP1). The preamble of the Convention on …
2016
Statement by Switzerland
In this context, the obligation to conduct legal reviews is central to discussions on autonomous weapons systems. We see a number of challenges related to autonomous weapons systems distinct from traditional weapons reviews. Specifically, the question is how such systems and their specific characteristics can …
Towards a “compliance-based” approach to LAWS
22. Under IHL, the substantive rules described above are complemented by a procedural rule. As with any other weapon, means or method of warfare, States have the positive obligation to determine, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of any AWS, whether their employment would, …
2015
Statement by Switzerland
As with any other weapon system, States must ensure that the development and use of LAWS are in compliance with existing international law. In this regard my delegation considers the duty to conduct legal reviews in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new …
Statement by Switzerland
Le domaine de la transparence pourrait constituer un domaine idéal pour le développement de premières mesures concrètes, et auraient en sus l'avantage de contribuer à éclairer les discussions futures sur la thématique. La question de l'examen au niveau national de la licéité de nouvelles armes, …
2014
Statement by Switzerland
Le fait de posséder une base légale solide ne devrait pas pour autant nous amener à faire preuve de complaisance. Bien au contraire, certains aspects légaux doivent être réaffirmés et soulignés. Une question devra notamment être abordée : celle de savoir si la réalisation des …
Statement by Switzerland (May 2014)
Dans le domaine juridique, nous relevons également l'importance attachée à la thématique de l'examen juridique des méthodes et moyens de guerre lors de nos discussions. Il s'agit là certainement d'un sujet central à préciser plus avant, tout comme la thématique de la responsabilité et la …
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from Switzerland
33. Switzerland has implemented a review mechanism within the defence structure. At the beginning of a procurement process, the IHL section of the staff of the chief of the armed forces is consulted by the organization in charge for the procurement project. The IHL-section may …