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.
47 positions GGE LAWS 2018 (remove filter)
2018
Statement by Italy
We also welcomed the shared reiteration that rules and principles of [IHL] must apply to all weapons systems, including LAWS. We continue to believe that our engagement towards the full implementation of, and respect for, the rules and principles of IHL must stand firm independently …
The Australian Article 36 Review Process
1. Article 36 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (Additional Protocol 1), provides: “In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means …
Statement by Belgium
We have a powerful instrument at our disposal to ensure that we do not put into service non IHL compliant weapons. This is Article 36 of [AP I] on the evaluation of the lawfulness of all new weapons. Belgium has put this instrument into practice …
Statement by Bulgaria
In our view, conducting legal weapon reviews under Article 36 of [AP I] serves as an important tool to assure that use and development of [AWS] is in compliance with IHL rules and regulations. Considering the multidimensional and intricate nature of LAWS, the processes of …
Statement by Finland
The obligation to carry out legal reviews of new weapons under article 36 of [AP I] is crucial for ensuring that a State’s armed forces are capable of conducting hostilities in accordance with its international obligations. We call for the universalization of this important protocol …
Statement by Norway
We stress, however, that the development and use of new military technologies, including autonomous technologies for military purposes, do not take place in a legal vacuum. We therefore see merit in further discussion and information sharing on how existing regulation, including national Article 36 processes, …
Statement by Poland
Having a common characterization of LAWS, or at least, a set of the key characteristics, would be a prerequisite for seeking future policy options. Pointing to these options, Poland underlines the significance of application of “Article 36 review” as essential to determining whether the adoption …
Statement by Switzerland
[A political declaration] could spell out a number of measures such as transparency, legal reviews, best practices, technical standards or other policy measures.
Statement by the Non-Aligned Movement
Regarding different proposals on a political declaration, code of conduct and other voluntary measures, including weapons review process, as well as the establishment of a Committee of Experts, NAM believes that these measures cannot be a substitute for the objective of concluding a legally binding …
Human-Machine Interaction in the Development, Deployment and Use of Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
32. We also recommend a proactive approach in addressing issues in human-machine interaction. States seeking to develop new uses for autonomy in their weapons should be affirmatively seeking to identify and address these issues in their respective processes for managing the life cycle of such …
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 Austria
There seems to be convergence of views on the importance and the merits, but also limitations of article 36. Weapon reviews constitute a critical national implementation mechanism to establish the legality of weapon, means or method of warfare. Article 36 is very valuable in that …
Statement by Germany
Legal/Ethical Issues […] Germany remains fully committed to the implementation of Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), concerning the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare. As previously stated, in 2016 Germany …
Statement by Italy
I believe that the starting point should remain a common, shared recognition that our engagement towards the full implementation of, and respect for, the rules and principles of IHL must stand firm independently of the specificity of any weapons system. I am referring not only …
Statement by New Zealand
At this stage, we are particularly interested in the existing obligation that all States Parties to [AP I] have to assess the compliance with IHL of all weapons, means and methods of warfare, including LAWS — through weapons reviews. These reviews serve as an existing …
Statement by Switzerland
A first example for concrete work in the CCW — whether triggered by a political declaration as just referred to, or by a more specific GGE mandate — are weapons reviews: This week showed again the centrality of the obligation to conduct legal reviews in …
Statement by the Netherlands
Article 36 of [API] contains the obligation to review whether the development or acquisition of new means and methods of warfare are permitted under international law. The Netherlands would like to underline that: (1) Efforts to ensure full and universal implementation of Article 36 procedures …
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 States
Although we’ve heard the message from some States that weapons reviews are not sufficient, we think further consideration by this group of weapons reviews, without prejudice to other elements of the groups’ work, would be worthwhile. The United States remains interested in sharing practice on …
Statement by the ICRC
The ICRC welcomes attention that this issue has brought to developing and improving legal review processes. The ICRC calls on all States to establish a weapon review mechanism or consider strengthening existing mechanisms to ensure that any new weapons that are developed and acquired can …
Statement by Germany
Only weapons that are operated in compliance with IHL are acceptable means of warfare. This might, as it is widely agreed on, only be assured as long as humans retain the sufficient control, at least over the critical functions of the weapons they operate, to …
Statement by Poland
Having regard to the ethical dimension in the first place, we also recall that the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack are the fundamental rules and principles of international humanitarian law. They reflect efforts made by the international community to introduce effective legal …
Statement by Switzerland
Arguably, it might be possible in the future, to exert already a significant level of [human] control in the development and programming phase…Through legal reviews the capability to use a given system, in all or some circumstances, in compliance with international law can be verified.
Statement by the Netherlands
Given the fact that most [AWS] involve a high level of complexity, the Netherlands believes that the following elements are of importance: … The execution of legal weapon reviews that pay sufficient attention to the autonomy aspect of the [AWS]. If needed, boundaries could be …
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 Australia
We see the legal framework for reviewing new weapons, means and methods of warfare, under Article 36 of [API], as being of particular importance in ensuring this compliance. We should not overlook or under-value article 36 reviews. Australia would like to encourage in-depth discussion of …
Statement by Belgium
La Belgique considère qu’il est important de poursuivre les échanges sur la mise en œuvre de l’art.36 du 1er Protocole additionnel aux Conventions de Genève et l’obligation d’évaluer la licéité de toute nouvelle arme. Mon pays plaide pour l’universalisation de cet instrument et de la …
Statement by Brazil
Others appreciate the exchange and deepening of discussions on the challenges ahead, but do not readily accept that LAWS exist, or that entirely autonomous weapons systems will ever exit, because there will always be some degree of human oversight. They believe national assessments under Article …
Statement by Bulgaria
Conducting legal weapon reviews under Article 36 of [AP I] plays a decisive role in guaranteeing that use and development of [LAWS] strictly comply with IHL norms. Information exchange on Article 36 mechanisms and procedures among State parties would be truly beneficial for improving the …