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.
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 …
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 …