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.
29 positions United Kingdom (remove filter)
2026
Statement by the United Kingdom
In paragraph 38, it is suggested that the modification is being reviewed for compliance with IHL, as opposed to the impact of the modification on the system's ability to be used for compliance with IHL. It is also clear that the preceding subparagraph reflects article …
Statement by the United Kingdom
On paragraph 39(a), the UK supports the inclusion of legal reviews within the measures. This group has long recognised the important role of legal review of weapons, not only in Guiding Principle (e), but also in its reports and working papers, which have considered the …
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
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in the United Kingdom
3. What is the United Kingdom’s approach to reviewing weapons? a) Does the Government conduct a legal review to determine whether new weapons and means or methods of warfare may be employed lawfully? Article 36 of AP I requires States to determine whether new weapons, …
Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems
Article 1. Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, …
Submission by the United Kingdom to the Secretary-General
[U]nder IHL the right of the Parties to a conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. This is emphasised by the obligation on States, under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, to determine whether the employment of …
2023
Letter (No 1) from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement
‘Article 36’ weapons reviews The United Kingdom is legally obliged to ensure that all weapons and associated equipment that it obtains, plans to acquire, or develops comply with the UK's treaty and other obligations under International Humanitarian Law (specifically Article 36 of The First Protocol …
Letter (No 2) from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement
2.3 ‘Black Box’ AI and Article 36 Reviews As noted in my previous letter, Article 36 Reviews are conducted to ensure that a weapon is capable of being used lawfully, having regard to all of the principles of IHL, in the context of its use …
Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems
Article 1. Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, …
Statement by the United Kingdom under agenda item 5, topic 6
The UK would strongly support further work in the GGE that focussed on sharing and collating good practice relating to the various activities throughout the life cycle of a weapon system which would impact upon compliance with IHL. This includes but is not limited to …
Statement by the United Kingdom (1st intervention)
It is the United Kingdom’s strong belief that the requirement for an anticipatory ban or restrictions on [LAWS] is mitigated by the legal obligation on States to determine whether the employment of such a weapon system would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by …
Statement by the United Kingdom (2nd intervention)
Rather than trying to prevent you asked him some more challenging questions, actually I want to remind us of the homework you presented this week last night. And I want to perhaps now take the opportunity to answer or provide a UK response to one …
Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems
Article 1: Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, …
Statement by the United Kingdom
We must also articulate the characteristics of these systems which may have positive or negative implications for compliance with IHL, and their impact upon activities throughout the life cycle of a weapon system, such as those elements that you mentioned in your introduction Mr Chair …
2022
Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) document on the application of International Humanitarian Law to Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS)
Annex A. Possible outline 1. The following is one possible outline for an IHL Manual as proposed by the UK, by way of illustration of the overall concept. It is based on eight headings, many of which reflect the concept, development and use cycle (‘lifecycle’ …
Principles and Good Practices on Emerging Technologies in the Area of LAWS
VIII. Good Practices Related to Human-Machine Interaction […] 26. At various stages of the life-cycle of a weapon, the following good practices related to human-machine interaction can strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law, strengthen accountability, and mitigate risks in the use of weapons systems based …
Written Contributions on Possible Consensus Recommendations
Legal Framework & Norms … Legal reviews of new weapons means and methods of warfare are crucial to determining whether a system can be used in compliance with IHL — states must revise and develop methodologies and ensure rigorous reviews in step with the emergence …
2021
Building on Chile’s proposed four elements of further work
Weapons Reviews Relevant Guiding Principles: In accordance with States’ obligations under international law, in the study, development, acquisition, or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, determination must be made whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by …
2020
National Commentary by the United Kingdom
As pointed out in the 2019 report of the GGE, exchange of good practice relating to key activities such as legal weapon reviews could be beneficial. We continue to believe this has merit and believe it not only to be an area worthy of focus, …
2018
Human Machine Touchpoints: The United Kingdom’s perspective on human control over weapon development and targeting cycles
11. … Assessment, evaluation and revision of both the system and the surrounding political, strategic, operational and tactical ‘wrap’ is a continuous cycle rather than a linear, sequential process and a combination of factors are required to ensure human control at the appropriate points. These …
Statement by the United Kingdom
2. … The UK’s clear position is that IHL and Article 36 Weapons Reviews are the applicable legal framework for the assessment and use of all weapons systems in armed conflict, including new and novel weapons technologies, in order to ensure their effects are thoroughly …
Statement by the United Kingdom
Accountability measures are built in throughout the lifecycle of weapons systems — from concept, to initial development, through the assessment of legal use and acceptance into service, and ultimately the decision to deploy a system operationally. This is written into the technical standards governing their …
Statement by the United Kingdom
3. … It [sic] not arbitrary, but it is a fact that no weapons system possessed by the UK is fully autonomous. Existing highly automated weapons meet the stringent standards of Article 36 legal weapons reviews. 6. … Focus on the level of human control …
Statement by the United Kingdom
5. Article 36 of [API] requires States to determine whether new weapons, means or methods of warfare may be employed lawfully under International Law. The United Kingdom takes this very seriously, and has published its weapons review procedures online in a document that sets out …
2016
Statement by the United Kingdom
Article 36 Weapons Reviews are the correct means to assess a weapon, means, or method of warfare and its use, as required by Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention. The UK is aware that despite the large numbers of States being signatories to the …
2015
Statement by the United Kingdom
From our perspective, to discuss LAWS is to discuss means and methods of warfare. As such, international humanitarian law provides the appropriate paradigm for discussion. To that end, we look forward to sharing our views on the process of Legal Weapons Review. That is a …
Statement by the United Kingdom
3. The UK takes its obligations under IHL extremely seriously. As required by Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention, the UK conducts legal reviews of weapons in accordance with Article 36 of the Protocol. The UK is aware that despite the large numbers of …
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from the United Kingdom
1. The United Kingdom recognises that all explosive munitions are capable of becoming Explosive Remnants of War. This is because all explosive ordnance is capable of failing to explode as intended. The United Kingdom therefore considers that the question relates to the use of all …
2004
United Kingdom, Military Manual
6.20 States party to Additional Protocol I are under an obligation ‘in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare . . . to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by [Additional …