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.
13 positions GGE LAWS 2017 (remove filter)
2017
Statement by Estonia
… A number of states have highlighted the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons systems as an implementation mechanism of international humanitarian law. Estonia would support a further discussion on best practices of weapons reviews, especially as concerns technologically complex weapon systems. Estonia …
Statement by Venezuela on behalf of NAM
Regarding different proposals on a political declaration, code of conduct and other voluntary measures, including weapons review process as well as the establishment of the committee of experts, NAM believes that this measure cannot be substitute for the objective concluding a legally binding instrument.
Statement by China
We have noted that some countries proposed a self-review of the legitimacy of weapons at the stage of their R&D. In our view, although national reviews of a weapons have some positive role and many countries, including China, have relevant mechanisms for review and assessment, …
Statement by Switzerland
… with regard to legal reviews, there appears to be consensus that autonomous weapon systems qualify as weapons in the sense of Article 36 of Additional Protocol 1 and are the subject to a new weapons review process like any other weapon. In this regard, …
Statement by Austria
The basis for the assessment of lawfulness of new weapons is inter alia enshrined in Article 36 of [AP I]. We encourage all States to strenuously conduct legal weapon reviews for all possible future weapons.
Statement by Germany
We believe that this GGE should consider exploring concrete options for transparency and confidence building. In our view voluntary measures that could increase confidence between States and enhance compliance with the existing regulations such as Article 36 of [AP I] include establishing transparency and facilitating …
Statement by New Zealand
We can also see much value in pursuing greater transparency and information exchange regarding the conduct of Article 36 reviews. At the same time, we can see that no one approach is sufficient to resolve the many concerns that have been raised about LAWS, in …
Statement by the European Union
The EU recalls that States Parties to [AP I] are required to conduct legal weapons reviews which is a key mechanism to establish, in each specific case, whether or not possible future LAWS can be developed, produced or used lawfully. The EU and its Member …
Autonomy in weapon systems
3. The United States of America views the review of the legality of weapons as a best practice for implementing customary and treaty law relating to weapons and their use in armed conflict. The United States of America is not a party to [AP I] …
A “compliance-based” approach to autonomous weapons
19. Under IHL, the substantive rules described above are complemented by a procedural rule. As with any other weapon, means or method of warfare, States have the positive obligation to determine, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of any [AWS], whether their employment would, …
For consideration by the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
C. Options for transparency and confidence building 9. Voluntary measures that could enhance compliance with the existing regulations (Article 36 of [AP I] on weapons reviews) and increase confidence between States include: (a) Establishing transparency and facilitating the identification of best-practices in conducting weapons reviews …
Weapons review mechanisms
I. Summary 1. Limitations on the choice of methods and means of warfare can already be found in the oldest sources of international humanitarian law and were repeated and re-established in article 35 of the First Additional protocol (AP1). The preamble of the Convention on …
Examination of various dimensions of emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems
16. For most states, weapon reviews are compulsory based on Article 36 of [API], which obliges States Parties involved in the development or acquisition of new means and methods of warfare to determine whether they are permitted under international law. The Netherlands is of the …