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.
23 positions GGE LAWS 2019 (remove filter)
2019
Questionnaire on the Legal Review Mechanisms of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare
1. At the 2018 session of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), Argentina presented working paper CCW/GGE.1/2018/WP.2 on strengthening the legal weapons review mechanisms established in accordance with Article 36 of Additional …
Food for Thought Paper
6. In previous discussions, a number of States pointed to the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons, in accordance with international law and more particularly with article 36 of [API]. In our view, this remains a useful and important avenue to ensure that …
Implementing International Humanitarian Law in the Use of Autonomy in Weapon Systems
12. The legal review of weapons prior to their use enables the State developing or acquiring the weapons to consider relevant IHL issues, including precautions to reduce the risk of civilian casualties. The legal review of the weapon also affords an opportunity to ensure that …
Statement by Austria
We share the view expressed earlier that artificial intelligence and self-learning elements raise questions as to how frequently do an [AWS] would need to be reviewed. Weapons reviews are important measures to review the legality of new weapons. Weapon reviews are helpful to establish, whether …
Statement by New Zealand
As one of the few countries that undertakes Article 36 reviews for new weapons, munitions, methods and means of warfare, New Zealand encourages all States parties to [AP I] to fulfil their existing legal obligations for weapons reviews. New Zealand also supports any initiatives which …
Statement by New Zealand
Among the outcomes from this Group, New Zealand would like to see clear recognition of the importance of strengthening the operation of Art 36 reviews. We welcome the efforts being made by the ICRC to progress work on sharing best practice methods for conducting reviews …
Statement by the ICRC
The ICRC has welcomed the attention that this discussion has brought to improving and developing legal review processes. Effective legal reviews are critical to ensuring that a State’s armed forces comply with IHL in light of rapid technological developments. Greater transparency in how States interpret …
Statement by the Netherlands
The Netherlands believes that such a document [an interpretative guide or codes of conduct] should focus, amongst others, on meaningful human control in relation to the deployment of autonomous weapons, as well as on how to properly consider meaningful human control in the Article 36 …
Australia’s system of control and application for autonomous weapon systems
16. An important aspect of the review process is an Article 36 Review. In accordance with Australia’s obligation as a party to Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention, an Article 36 Review must be undertaken before a new weapon system can be introduced into …
Statement by Austria
… Lastly, we wish to address the issue of national weapon reviews, also referred to as Article 36 weapon reviews. The objective of these reviews is explicitly mentioned in our last years guiding principles. There seems to be convergence of views on the importance and …
Statement by Brazil
Brazil acknowledges the importance of weapons reviews in order to support compliance with IHL in the use of novel weapons systems, both under Article 36 of Protocol II [sic!] to the Geneva Conventions and as a corollary of customary international law.
Statement by Canada
DND/CAF’s Legal Weapons Review Process Canada conducts legal reviews of new weapons, means, and methods of warfare that are being contemplated for study, development, acquisition, or adoption by the Department of Defenceand the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure their compliance with international law. As part …
Statement by Greece
… the provisions of Article 36 of [AP I] provides us with the necessary framework to ensure that the use of weapon systems will be in compliance with the cardinal principles of IHL in all circumstances of use.
Statement by Ireland
The conduct of legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of war under article 36 of [AP I] is important for ensuring that the development, deployment and use of new weapons systems and new means and methods of warfare comply with international law. As …
Statement by the European Union
We recall that national legal weapons reviews must be conducted, pursuant to Article 36 of [AP I], in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, in order to determine whether its employment would, in some or all …
Statement by the Netherlands
On weapon reviews procedures. To further IHL compliance, the Netherlands is of the opinion that (1) the implementation of Article 36 procedures should be promoted (2) the concept of meaningful human control should play an important role within the Article 36 review and that (3) …
Statement by the Netherlands
… meaningful human control should consider, inter alia, the following elements: (3) The execution of legal weapon reviews that pay sufficient attention to the level of autonomy of the weapon system.
Statement by Finland
We feel that our discussions should actually reflect the issue of trust: trust between a human and the machine in respect to the authorisation of force. Only trusted systems can be authorized to execute tasks defined by humans. To ascertain this trust, we emphasize the …
Statement of the European Union
All States must ensure that emerging technologies including Artificial Intelligence that could be used in [LAWS] are developed and used in compliance with international law, in particular [IHL]. National legal weapons reviews in compliance with IHL remain a relevant tool in this context. Humans need …
Possible outcome of 2019 GGE and future actions of international community on LAWS
Concerning confidence building measures, it is appropriate to consider what kind of mechanism is suitable in order to secure transparency. Introducing an implementation mechanism of weapons review into the annual report of the CCW may work as one of such mechanisms.
Potential opportunities and limitations of military uses of lethal autonomous weapons systems
8. Article 36 of 1977 Additional Protocol I (AP I) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is a supplementary tool to regulate LAWS in the context of future military uses. Russia adheres to its relevant obligations and deems it unnecessary to elaborate a universal mandatory …
Statement by Greece
As we have already outlined, the use of algorithms with the ability of learning in weapons raises concerns which revolve around to their predictability and reliability on the battlefield. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to verify that any weapon with a high degree of …
2018
Position Paper
4. In addition, national reviews on the research, development and use of new weapons have, to a certain extent, positive significance on preventing the misuse of relevant technologies and on reducing harm to civilians. However, as national policies and practices in this regard differ quite …