Positions of States and Organisations

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.

2026

  1. Statement by APILS and Utrecht University

    2 September 2026State or organisation: APILSState or organisation: Utrecht UniversityForum: GGE LAWS 2026

    We welcome the revised language concerning legal reviews in paragraph 39. The paragraph now consolidates the text on legal reviews, and separates it from other measures, mentioned in subsequent paragraphs, taken across the life cycle of LAWS. We believe this separation is appropriate as the …

  2. Statement by APILS and Utrecht University

    4 March 2026State or organisation: APILSState or organisation: Utrecht UniversityForum: GGE LAWS 2026

    Our most fundamental concern with this box, also shared by others who have intervened today, is that it does not sufficiently distinguish between legal obligations and other measures. This blurring occurs as a result of the conduct of legal reviews being placed under a chapeau …