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.
40 positions GGE LAWS 2023 (remove filter)
2023
Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems
Article 1. Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, …
Draft Protocol on Autonomous Weapon Systems (Protocol VI)
Article 5: Review of Weapons Sec. 1: Each High Contracting Party shall ensure that weapon systems under development or modification which changes the effects or use of existing weapon systems, including as a result of self-learning processes, must be reviewed to ensure compliance with international …
Statement by the United Kingdom under agenda item 5, topic 6
The UK would strongly support further work in the GGE that focussed on sharing and collating good practice relating to the various activities throughout the life cycle of a weapon system which would impact upon compliance with IHL. This includes but is not limited to …
Statement by Algeria
… At the outset, I’d like to say that answers to some of the questions have already been included in, or covered by, the statement made by the delegation of Algeria earlier this morning. But as part of our interactive debate, I would like to …
Statement by Argentina
Reviews of new weapons systems in the context of rapid pace of technological advancement requires scientific and technical capacities that in connection with [AWS] will clearly show the gap in the positions of states when they analyse new technologies and their compliance with international law. …
Statement by Australia (1st intervention)
My delegation welcomes a discussion on legal reviews of autonomous weapons systems. We see this topic as particularly ripe for further elaboration in the GGE, as – to our mind – effective practices in relation to weapons reviews have the potential to address many of …
Statement by Australia (2nd intervention)
So in answer to the question, “Can legal reviews by themselves ensure compliance with IHL?”, we don’t see it in of itself, sufficient to ensure compliance. We see legal reviews as an important check and balance within a broader system of control as reflective of …
Statement by Austria
As outlined by the address before in this discussion, the conduct of legal reviews is an existing obligation under Article 36 of [AP I], reaffirmed in our context for Guiding Principle (e). It is the task of our expert group to give additional guidance on …
Statement by Bulgaria
… our delegation strongly supports the inclusion of the topic on the legal weapon reviews with regard to [AWS]. Being one of the key areas of convergence of growing convergence, a comprehensive and in-depth discussion on the subject matter is valuable and beneficial for the …
Statement by China
Legal review is a provision in AP I of Geneva Conventions. All High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions should strictly fulfil the obligations by carrying out legal reviews on AWS and other new weapons. Such reviews can help to prevent misuse of technology and …
Statement by Denmark
… Denmark considers weapons review as an essential tool in ensuring that all weapons systems are in compliance with IHL. As many have already mentioned, with Guiding Principle (e) this group has already highlighted the importance of weapons reviews. Like our Dutch colleague, we would …
Statement by Ecuador
… I would like to focus on the first part and the following three questions. The first question is key and the most important word there is the word insure. Because I don’t think that legal reviews by themselves cannot ensure compliance with IHL. It …
Statement by France
… we believe that states should commit themselves to adopt and implement national measures with a view of accompanying the development and employment of weapon systems that have autonomy, in order to guarantee full compliance with IHL. Such measures should cover the entire life-cycle of …
Statement by Germany
The 2019 [GGE] adopted 11 guidelines reflect that “in accordance with states’ obligations under international law, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or methods of warfare, determination must be made whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, …
Statement by India
Our delegation would like to submit that India is not a party to [AP I]. There is no consonance between the list of countries who are party to [AP I] and the High Contracting Parties of the CCW. However, our delegation also submits that we …
Statement by Israel
We wanted to join those calling for more discussions regarding national weapons reviews. Notwithstanding that Israel is not a party to [AP I], and as such is not bound by Article 36 of that Protocol, Israel is of the view that conducting legal reviews to …
Statement by Japan
Legal reviews of weapons systems using emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, which are carried out with reregard to their research, development, acquisition, employment, as well as methods and means of warfare, is useful in determining whether they are prohibited by international law applicable …
Statement by Mexico
We wish to begin by saying that we agree with you and with other delegations that have spoken here this morning. We believe that there is considerable convergence on this issue. It is true that current legal review obligations under IHL apply generally speaking to …
Statement by Norway
Norway too is a long-standing party to the Additional Protocol II [sic!] and Article 36 of course. Legal reviews are essential to ensuring compliance with international law as has been pointed out by so many and we very much support fleshing out what considerations the …
Statement by Pakistan
We would also like to appreciate your deft handling of this body and your introduction under this topic, which we found very useful. Some very pertinent questions were raised by you. … [W]e can go with you, when you characterise our discussions under this topic, …
Statement by Sweden (1st intervention)
[A] s other delegations here today, Sweden like to underline the importance of conducting legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of warfare. And we find working papers that engage with the obligation of Article 36 in relation to LAWS useful in the work …
Statement by Sweden (2nd intervention)
This is on the questions we had before lunch. We believe that legal reviews can assist in insurance compliance with IHL but it’s one of several tools in the tool-kit, including training and {operational} planning, etc. And it’s important that legal reviews are complete and …
Statement by Switzerland
We are pleased to note that almost all proposals and working papers on the table stressed the importance of legal reviews of weapons. While not the sole solution for the challenges associated with increasing autonomy and weapon systems, legal reviews are a crucial instrument and …
Statement by the ICRC
It’s been encouraging on this topic to see the attention given during discussions of [AWS] to the conduct of legal reviews. Effective legal reviews are a clear procedural obligation for states party to [AP I], and for all states are critical to ensuring that their …
Statement by the Netherlands (1st intervention)
As we and many other states have mentioned, the ability to exercise human control and judgments during the development and use of [AWS] is key to ensure compliance with obligations under international law, in particular [IHL]. Conducting a legal review of [AWS] in line with …
Statement by the Netherlands (2nd intervention)
… to turn to your first questions, and these are, of course, kind of preliminary remarks, I would say that legal reviews by themselves are not the only tool to ensure compliance with IHL, and I agree with my colleague from Ecuador, who made the …
Statement by the Philippines (1st intervention)
There is much common ground among all delegations and in the respective proposals regarding the importance of weapons review at the national level. This, after all, is already an existing legal obligation. There is also growing recognition that exchange of information and good practices is …
Statement by the Philippines (2nd intervention)
Well, my delegation would just like to express how encouraged we are with the tone of the discussions so far. And we take particular interest, and we’d like to echo some of the points that were raised by the distinguished delegation of Pakistan and Argentina, …
Statement by the Russian Federation
Today we’re discussing a very important question in our view, a question that is related to questions of compliance with the provisions of IHL during the entire life-cycle of such weapon systems that we consider to be lethal autonomous weapons systems. We believe that at …
Statement by the United Kingdom (1st intervention)
It is the United Kingdom’s strong belief that the requirement for an anticipatory ban or restrictions on [LAWS] is mitigated by the legal obligation on States to determine whether the employment of such a weapon system would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by …