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.
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 …