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 (continued)
Statement by Finland
When considering the human element in the use of lethal force, Finland believes that compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law is a key component. The notion that humans will now and in the future exert control over decisions of life and death needs …
Statement by France (9 April 2018)
Au-delà de ces aspects fondamentaux, je souhaite rappeler les points essentiels pour ma délégation : … L’Article 36 du Protocole I additionnel aux Conventions de Genève, qui prévoit l’évaluation des nouveaux systèmes d’armes au regard du DIH, constitue un cadre de réflexion pertinent à cet …
Statement by Greece
The legal framework necessary to ensure that any new weapons including LAWS, will be used in compliance with the provisions of International Law has already, been provided by Article 36 of [AP I] and, of course, by the Martens Clause.
Statement by Italy
… international humanitarian law continues to apply fully to all weapons systems, including the potential development and use of LAWS. To this aim, conducting legal reviews of weapons, means and methods of warfare, in accordance with art. 36 of the Additional Protocol I to the …
Statement by Pakistan
We are of the view that a Political Declaration or non-legally binding Code of Conduct comprising voluntary measures can only be an interim step towards a legally binding instrument. Similarly, the “weapon review” required under Article 36 of [AP I] is not sufficient to deal …
Statement by Sri Lanka
While national legal reviews of new weapons may be a starting point, in the absence of a common definition on LAWS and global regulations, national reviews conducted based on inconsistent interpretations may not fully addressed the seriousness of the threats posed to humanity by LAWS.
Statement by Sweden
… we would like to underline the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of warfare. We found the working papers on article 36 reviews, as well as on ensuring compliance with [IHL] presented to the meeting of the GGE very …
Statement by Switzerland
Key elements of such a [political] declaration [by the CCW] could include: … In view of ensuring compliance, a reaffirmation of the obligation to review new weapons and to determine whether their employment would, in some or all circumstances, contravene existing international law; … Still …
Statement by the European Union
… legal weapons reviews, as required by Article 36 of [AP I] are crucial. These require that States conduct legal reviews to establish, in each specific case, whether a weapon, means or method of warfare can be developed, acquired or used lawfully. Such reviews should …
Statement by the ICRC
The ICRC welcomes efforts to improve implementation of IHL, including through enhancing mechanisms to review the legality of new weapons. Conducting legal reviews of weapon systems with autonomy in their critical functions can raise challenges, in particular regarding standards of predictability and reliability. The ICRC …
Statement by the Netherlands
The unanimous conclusion by the High Contracting Parties that all weapon systems, including LAWS, and their deployment in armed conflict, must comply with the requirements set by international law, in particular [IHL]. In this light, we encourage all states to fulfil their obligations under article …
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 …
Statement by the United States
The United States places great importance on the weapon review process in the development and acquisition of new weapon systems. This is a critical measure in ensuring that weapon systems can dependably be used in a manner that is consistent with IHL
Strengthening of the review mechanisms of a new weapon, means or methods of warfare
I. Introduction 1. International humanitarian law (IHL) aims at limiting the suffering engendered by war and mitigate its effects. To that end, IHL has become a complex set of norms comprised of six main treaties, additional treaties and a dense framework of customary norms that …
Ethics and autonomous weapon systems: An ethical basis for human control?
From a legal perspective, when considering the obligation of States to review new weapons before their deployment and use under Article 36 of [AP I], it is difficult to see how a weapon system that autonomously changes its own functioning could ever be approved, since …
Working Paper on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
Development and use of LAWS should remain in compliance with the international law, in particular with the [IHL] and the international human rights law. According to Article 36 of [API] states should determine the lawfulness of any new weapon or means or method of warfare …
General principles on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
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 …