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.
6 positions Türkiye (remove filter)
2026
Statement by Türkiye
We further place on record our understanding that formulations expressed as must in the current text including but not limited to paragraphs 31, 32, 34, 37, 41, 42 as they stand, are intended to reflect existing obligations and apply to each state only in accordance …
Statement by Türkiye
Paragraph 38 still requires States to conduct legal reviews in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of laws, language drawn directly from Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. As we're not party to that protocol, we cannot accept treaty-specific language in a set of elements …
Statement by Türkiye
On paragraph 39, incorporation of language drawn from Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, specifically study, development, acquisition or adoption, as is this room, my country is not party to that protocol. We do not believe language specific to one treaty regime should be imported …
Statement by Türkiye
… paragraph 39 now incorporates language directly drawn from Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. As my delegation is not party to that instrument, we cannot accept language that imports treaty-specific obligations into a document intended to reflect common understanding among all states, including non-parties. …
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 …
2022
Statement by Türkiye
Although Türkiye is not party to the Additional Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions (Additional Protocol I) relating to the protection of the victims in international armed conflicts, it fulfils its liabilities by investigating whether it is prohibited, according to the international law, as …